[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 42 (Tuesday, April 12, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3461-S3473]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page S3461]]
       EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005--Continued


                     Amendment No. 344, As Modified

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, it is my intention to make a point of 
order in connection with the amendment that has been offered by 
Senators Murray and Akaka. But I do not want to do that if they are not 
here on the floor. I will wait to give them an opportunity to make any 
statements or motions they may deem appropriate. So I do not want to 
foreclose anyone from having an opportunity to express themselves on 
that issue. But I do make that announcement just for the information of 
all Senators, that we have pending before us an amendment that purports 
to add as a matter of emergency appropriations $1.9 billion to the 
Veterans' Administration accounts.
  The administration has not asked for these funds. Testimony before 
the relevant committees of jurisdiction, the Veterans Affairs' 
Committee and the Appropriations subcommittee that funds or recommends 
funding for veterans programs, has not led Senators to request funds 
for inclusion in the committee mark. So there is a disparity between 
the proponents of the amendment and what they are urging the Senate to 
approve and what is being requested as a matter of emergency 
appropriations.
  In addition, the language of the amendment actually has a provision 
that the moneys appropriated under the amendment would be available 
until expended, which means the funding would carry over into the next 
fiscal year. We are, right now, having committees consider the funding 
levels that are needed in the next fiscal year, beginning October 1.
  So with no requests for funds, with the administration saying they 
have enough funds to run the VA health programs and hospital programs 
between now and the end of this fiscal year, we are going to suggest 
that this is subject to a point of order. It is my intention to make 
that point of order.
  Seeing that the Senators are on the floor now, Mr. President, 
pursuant to section 402 of S. Con. Res. 95 of the 108th Congress, I 
make a point of order that the amendment contains an emergency 
designation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to waive the point of order and 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, a vote now occurs on the motion to waive, 
right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is right.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, there is a question about how much time 
is going to be----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to waive is debatable.
  The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, there is some confusion on my part. I 
thought the Senators were going to debate this, but there was a 
suggestion that we could agree on a time for a vote on the motion to 
waive the Budget Act. So I inquire of Senators whether that is the 
feeling on the other side. We would be willing to enter into an 
agreement for a vote to occur at a time certain that might suit the 
convenience of all Senators.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am happy to talk to the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee in order to work out a time agreement. I do 
have more I would like to say. This amendment is extremely serious. It 
is an emergency. We would like some more time, so I am happy to talk to 
the chairman about having an agreement on time, if he would like to do 
that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator. 
Let me suggest, then, if there is no objection, that we enter into an 
agreement that we have a vote that will occur at 3:30 this afternoon.
  Would that be satisfactory with the Senator?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I assume the time will be equally divided 
between now and 3:30 on this amendment. That would be satisfactory.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
vote on the motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to the Murray 
amendment at 3:30 p.m. today, with debate until the vote equally 
divided in the usual form and no amendments in order to the amendment 
prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Chair and thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, 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. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by my colleague, Senator Murray. Senator Murray, I believe, offered 
this identical amendment in the Appropriations Committee when it marked 
up the appropriations supplemental bill. I was very pleased to support 
her then.
  I want to refer back to a time when we held a hearing with the 
Secretary of Defense. My colleague, Senator Murray, was at that 
hearing. She asked some questions, and other colleagues did, and I did, 
about this issue of health care, health care for soldiers and health 
care for veterans. One of the questions we asked was, What is the 
continuum here between a soldier and a veteran?
  I would guess all of us in this Chamber have driven to Bethesda Naval 
Hospital and Walter Reed Medical Center to visit young men and women 
who have been wounded with respect to hostilities in Iraq. I have made 
many such visits. I have seen these brave soldiers lying in their 
hospital bed, often with an arm missing or a leg missing or other 
serious wounds, convalescing and recovering. In most cases, God 
willing, when they recover, they will get rehabilitation, and then they 
will, in most cases, be discharged from the service.
  We asked the Secretary of Defense, at that point, What is the 
difference between a soldier on active duty and a young soldier who has 
just been released from Walter Reed Medical Center who is then 
discharged but continues to need medical help for the wounds they 
suffered in the war? Is there really any difference? And should there 
really be a difference in the health care that is delivered?
  I am enormously proud of the men and women who work at hospitals such 
as Walter Reed Medical Center and Bethesda Naval Hospital, those we see 
most often when we visit. That health care could not be better. They do 
an extraordinary job.
  There was recently an article about the job they do in a publication 
called the Washington Monthly. I discussed that article with Mr. 
Principi, then the head of the VA. I said, you ought to send this 
article out to every single employee of the VA because without 
sufficient money--and they have not had sufficient money--they have 
done an extraordinary job.
  But the question is, When someone becomes a veteran, having come off 
active duty with a war wound, what happens? Is there full funding in 
that case for the kind of health care they need? The answer is no.
  My colleague from the State of Washington, Senator Murray, 
understands that. She has led the fight on this issue for a long while, 
to say: Can't we have full funding for health care for veterans?
  You can go any place in this country these days and talk about 
America's service men and women, and people respond to it. They care 
about the people who wear this country's uniform, and they want to 
support them. But that support does not just occur with respect to when 
they are in a hospital such as Walter Reed or Bethesda. That support 
must occur with respect to VA hospitals and community-based veterans 
clinics.

  As you know, the President's budget does not provide funding for the 
clinics

[[Page S3462]]

that were promised, the clinics that would allow a veteran who has 
health care issues to show up at a local storefront VA clinic instead 
of having to drive, particularly in rural States, hundreds and hundreds 
and hundreds of miles. Well, that is not funded by the President's 
budget. Even though they had decided they were going to do that, the 
President says, no, we do not have the money.
  My colleague from the State of Washington, Senator Murray, asks the 
question: What is more important in this country? I am not asking you 
for 10 things, but just give us a couple. What is more important than 
keeping our promise of health care to veterans? Just give me a couple 
of things that are more important. These are the people to whom we 
offered a promise, who answered the call: Uncle Sam wants you. Wear the 
uniform of this country. Put yourself in harm's way, perhaps lose an 
arm, perhaps lose a leg, maybe lose your life.
  What is more important than saying to those people who answered that 
call that when you need medical help in our veterans medical system, we 
will have adequate funding to make sure you get that help?
  I recall one day a father calling me and saying: I have a son who 
fought in the Vietnam war, and he suffered a head wound, a bullet to 
the brain. It was a very serious head wound that left him in 
devastating condition, and because of that brain wound and his 
incapacity, he was suffering muscle atrophy, and at some point he had 
to have a toe removed. They said, well, to have that toe removed, you 
have to take this young veteran to Fargo, ND, which was about 250 miles 
away--500 miles round trip.
  So for this young man, who suffered a wound to the head in a war and 
was incapacitated as a result of it, put him in a car and drive him 500 
miles round trip to have a toe removed. I said: Isn't there some common 
sense here? Couldn't this be done somewhere closer? We finally resolved 
that.
  But the fact is, the money that was left out of the President's 
budget for the storefront community clinics for veterans, that is 
exactly the kind of thing they can do in many cases. Yet somehow this 
is not an urgent priority, with all of the young veterans coming back 
with wounds from this war, the Iraqi war, and with all of the World War 
II veterans now reaching that age where they need maximum care, the 
maximum claim on health care they were promised.
  If ever we need to decide as a priority in this Congress that we need 
to keep our promise to veterans, it is now. That is all the Senator 
from the State of Washington is saying: Let's keep this promise. There 
seems to be money for a lot of other priorities around here that rank 
far lower than health care for America's veterans.
  All of us have stories about these veterans, about those we have 
visited who were involved in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and now the 
gulf war. Those stories, individually and collectively, talk about 
heroism and commitment and service, duty, honor, country. Duty and 
honor, it seems to me, for us is to make the right choice.
  It is always about choices in Congress. Who among us will decide 
today that it is the wrong choice to fully fund veterans health care in 
this country? Who among us will decide that is the wrong choice? For 
me, it is the right choice to decide veterans deserve to know we keep 
our promise. That is the import of the amendment from Senator Murray. I 
am proud to stand here and speak for it and support it and vote for it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Murray 
amendment. This is an emergency supplemental bill. We are considering 
funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. I voted against this 
war. I didn't think we were prepared. I didn't think we had a coalition 
to stand behind us that would send in the soldiers and bring the 
resources to the battle. Our military went into this war and performed 
admirably. We were well prepared for the military invasion. Clearly we 
were not prepared for what happened afterward.
  For 2 years now we have been in Iraq and Afghanistan. For 2 years we 
have seen the casualties come home and we have seen the body bags and 
caskets come home as well. We have lost over 16,000 of our best and 
bravest in Iraq to this day. Among our allies, thank goodness there 
have been fewer losses. But in comparison it shows we are carrying the 
burden of battle. Our sons and daughters are carrying the burden of 
battle. The taxpayers, with this bill, will put the resources into 
material and equipment so these soldiers can do their job and come home 
safely.
  How many of us have stood up on the floor of the Senate on both sides 
of the aisle praising these men and women in uniform, saying we have to 
stand behind them, keep them in your thoughts and prayers, don't be 
ashamed to wave that flag? We are all proud Americans.
  Senator Murray comes to us today and asks whether our pride in our 
fighting men and women is enough for us to declare it an emergency to 
make sure our veterans hospitals and clinics are up to the task of 
serving these men and women. For us to give all the great speeches 
about how much we admire the soldiers and then, when they are hurt and 
come home, to throw them into a VA system unprepared to take care of 
them is a mockery. If we truly believe in the goodness of the men and 
women who risk their lives for America, why wouldn't we vote for the 
Murray amendment to put the money in the veterans hospitals so the very 
best doctors and nurses and equipment is there for our sons, our 
daughters, the husband, and wives of people we love.
  Let me tell you about one element of this which I am particularly 
proud that Senator Murray has added at my request. It is estimated that 
at least one out of every five soldiers who serves will come home and 
face a condition known as posttraumatic stress disorder. What is it? If 
you saw the movie ``Patton,'' you can recall that scene where George C. 
Scott, playing Patton, went in the military hospital, saw a soldier on 
a cot and asked: Where were you hit, soldier? The soldier responded: I 
wasn't hit. I just can't do it anymore. And Patton reached down and 
slapped him. He slapped that soldier and that slap reverberated across 
America, a scandalous headline that this general would slap a soldier 
because he couldn't face battle.
  In all honesty, it is that attitude and denial which have led the 
United States to ignore this very real problem. It wasn't until 1980, 
25 years ago, that the Veterans' Administration acknowledged the fact 
that when you take men and women in America, train them to be soldiers 
and sailors, marines and airmen, serve in the Coast Guard, put them 
into battle, they can have life experiences and witness events which 
will have a dramatic impact on them personally. They may need help and 
counseling to come home and set their lives on the right path. The 
first time we acknowledged posttraumatic stress disorder was 1980. They 
used to call it shell shock and battle fatigue. But it was never 
acknowledged as a medical problem that needed attention until 1980.

  A few weeks ago I went across my State of Illinois. I went to five 
different locations for roundtables. I invited medical counselors from 
the Veterans' Administration to tell me about the soldiers who were 
trying to come to grips with this torment in their minds over what they 
had done and what they had seen. I was nothing short of amazed at what 
happened. In every single stop, these men and women came forward and 
sat at tables before groups in their communities, before the media, and 
told their sad stories of being trained to serve this country, being 
proud to serve, and going into battle situations which caused an impact 
on their mind they never could have imagined, and coming home with 
their minds in this turmoil over what they had done and seen, and many 
times having to wait months and, in one case, a year before they could 
see a doctor at a VA hospital.
  I couldn't believe the stories of World War II veterans. A veteran in 
southern Illinois who was in the Philippines couldn't come to my 
meeting because ``I just can't face talking about it,'' 60 years after 
his experience. Veterans from Korea where my two brothers served, 
veterans from Vietnam who came home rejected by many, who couldn't 
resolve their difficulties because they were afraid to even acknowledge 
they were veterans, tormented by this for decades.

[[Page S3463]]

  The ones that gripped my heart the most were the Iraqi veterans. I 
will never forget these men and women. The one I sat next to at 
Collinsville, a bright, handsome, good looking young marine, talked 
about going into Fallujah with his unit and how his point man was 
riddled with bullets, and he had to carry the parts of his body out of 
that street into some side corner where he could be evacuated, at least 
the remains could be evacuated. Then he served as point man and went 
forward. A rocket-propelled grenade was shot at him, and it bounced off 
his helmet. One of the insurgents came up and shot him twice in the 
chest. This happened in November. He was there. He survived.
  When he came home, he couldn't understand who he was because of what 
he had seen and been involved in. He had problems with his wife, 
difficult, violent problems, and he turned to the VA for help.
  I said to this young marine: I am almost afraid to ask you this, but 
how old are you?
  He said: I am 19.
  Think of what he has been through. Thank goodness he is in the hands 
of counselors. Thank goodness he is getting some help, moving in the 
right direction.
  But in another meeting in southern Illinois, another soldier said, in 
front of the group: As part of this battle, I killed children, women. I 
killed old people. I am trying to come to grips with this in my mind as 
I try to come back into civilian life.
  A young woman, an activated guardswoman from Illinois, said when she 
came out, still in distress over what she had seen and done, they 
stopped her at Camp McCoy in Wisconsin and sat her down and asked: Any 
problems? Of course, that should have been the time for her to come 
forward and say: I have serious problems. She didn't. Because if you 
said you had a problem, you had to stay at Camp McCoy for 3 more 
months. She was so desperate to get home she said: No problems.

  She came home and finally realized that was not true. She had serious 
psychological problems over what she had been through. When she turned 
to the VA and asked for help, they said: You can come in and see a 
counselor at the VA in 1 year.
  What happens to these veterans, victims of posttraumatic stress 
disorder, without counseling at an early stage? Sadly, many of them see 
their marriages destroyed. One I met was on his fourth marriage. Many 
of them self-medicate with alcohol, sometimes with drugs, desperate to 
find some relief from the nightmares they face every night. These are 
the real stories of real people, our sons and daughters, our brothers 
and sisters, our husbands and wives who go to battle to defend this 
country and come home with the promise that we will stand behind them.
  If we stand behind them, we need to stand by the Murray amendment--$2 
billion to make sure these hospitals and clinics have the very best 
people to treat our soldiers coming home; money as well to make certain 
that there is family therapy, something that is often overlooked. How 
many times do you hear the story of the wife who says: Who is this man 
who came back from battle? He is not the soldier I sent away. He is so 
distant. He doesn't talk to me. He gets angry in a hurry. He wants to 
be away from us. That is not the man I sent to battle. The spouses and 
their children need help, too.
  I implore my colleagues. I know it is considered unusual to come in 
on a President's request and add money for the Veterans' 
Administration. But we are not doing our duty as Senators to only 
provide the money for the troops for the battle. We have to do more. We 
must do that. But we need to provide the physical and mental medical 
help these same soldiers need when they come home.
  I thank Senator Murray for her leadership on this amendment. I wish 
it were a bipartisan amendment. There is certainly bipartisan support 
for our troops. But maybe when the vote comes, we will find if the same 
Senators who have said such glowing things about the men and women in 
uniform will stand by them when they come home and need a helping hand.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Illinois for 
his heartfelt statement. I know he has worked in his State, talking to 
young men and women who are coming home. He has looked them in the eyes 
as I have. I was with him in Kuwait and Iraq a few weeks ago talking to 
soldiers who are coming home.
  The No. 1 question was: We are hearing that services are not going to 
be available for us when we get home. We are hearing that the veterans 
from Vietnam and World War II are waiting in line. We have been over 
here for a year.
  They fear this country has forgotten them despite all the rhetoric on 
this floor. The Senator from Illinois is right. This is not a 
Republican issue. It is not a Democratic issue. This is an American 
issue. This is about our American men and women serving us honorably 
and who deserve to have the services when they come home.
  The Senator from Illinois is right. To look into the eyes of a young 
family where one of them is suffering from posttraumatic stress 
syndrome affecting their marriage, job, their entire community, and 
what are we saying? Wait in lines. You don't get in to be served? That 
is not an emergency?
  What we have now in front of us is a point of order saying this is 
not an emergency. If it is not an emergency to take care of our men and 
women who are now serving us overseas, who have come home, then I don't 
know what is. When I am going out and talking to service organizations 
and every single VISN in this country is telling us they are working 
under debts, they are not hiring doctors and nurses to replace those 
who are leaving, they have beds that are being held together by duct 
tape--if that is not an emergency, then I can't think of one that is.
  We have talked to veterans in every single VISN. Every single one of 
them has given us dramatic stories of the wait lines, of clinics that 
have been promised and not opened, of service men and women from 
previous wars who are not getting served. This is not an emergency? I 
disagree.
  I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Schumer, Johnson, Corzine, 
Lincoln, Landrieu, and Dorgan as cosponsors of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent to print two letters of support 
in the Record. They are from the national veterans service 
organizations: The American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, 
Amvets, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Disabled American Veterans.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                          The American Legion,

                                   Washington, DC, April 11, 2005.
     Hon. Patty Murray,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Murray: Thank you for offering an amendment to 
     the H.R. 1268, FY 2005 emergency supplemental appropriations, 
     to add $2 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 
     medical care. VA medical care is truly the ongoing cost of 
     war. You have The American Legion's full support.
       VA is not meeting the health care needs of America's 
     veterans. Currently, certain veterans are actually denied 
     access to the VA health care system even though they are 
     willing to make co-payments and have third-party health care 
     insurance, while other face lengthy delays in accessing care. 
     Although providing quality health care, VA cannot meet its 
     own timely access standards simply because it lacks the 
     health care professionals to meet the demand for services.
       In 2003, the President's Task Force to Improve Health Care 
     Delivery For Our Nation's Veterans cited ``eliminating the 
     mismatch between demand and funding'' as a major obstacle. 
     Last year, VA officials claimed to need between 10 and 14 
     percent annual increases just to maintain current services 
     because of Federal payraises and medical inflation. VA health 
     care is still the best value for the taxpayer's dollar.
       As former active-duty service members, especially National 
     Guard and Reservists, transition to their civilian 
     lifestyles, many new veterans will turn to VA to address 
     their health care concerns, especially those with mental 
     health problems associated with combat. VA is a world leader 
     in effective treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder 
     (PTSD) and other readjustments problems. VA must be funded to 
     make sure this newest generation of wartime veterans are 
     properly cared for in a timely manner and not displace other 
     veterans seeking care due simply to limited resources.
       Once again, thank you for offering an amendment to add $2 
     billion for VA medical

[[Page S3464]]

     care. Timely access to VA medical care is an earned benefit 
     from a grateful nation.
           Sincerely,

                                              Steve Robertson,

                                                         Director,
     National Legislative Commission.
                                  ____



                                       The Independent Budget,

                                    Washington, DC, April 6, 2005.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the co-authors of The 
     Independent Budget, AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, 
     Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Veterans of Foreign 
     Wars, we are writing to express our support for the proposed 
     Murray-Akaka amendment to the FY 2005 Emergency Supplemental 
     that would provide $1.9 billion in much needed funding for 
     veterans' health care.
       Providing health care to returning servicemembers is an 
     ongoing cost of our national defense. Servicemembers who 
     participate in a theater of combat are eligible for health 
     care from the Department of Veterans Affairs for two years 
     after separation or release from active duty, without regard 
     for strict eligibility rules. VA hospitals are facing budget 
     deficits and moving to reduce services. Neither the 
     Administration's FY 2006 budget request nor the recently 
     passed budget resolution, addressed the costs of providing 
     needed health care. The Independent Budget has recommended an 
     increase for VA health care of $3.5 billion for FY 2006. This 
     amendment would provide the funding needed to care for these 
     returning veterans, as well as provide the resources the VA 
     needs to meet shortfalls that are affecting veterans today.
       We ask you to support this amendment and to provide the 
     dollars needed to care for servicemembers returning from Iraq 
     and Afghanistan, as well as all veterans who rely upon the VA 
     to provide their health care.
           Sincerely,
     Rick Jones,
       National Legislative Director, AMVETS.
     Richard B. Fuller,
       National Legislative Director, Paralyzed Veterans of 
     America.
     Joseph A. Violante,
       National Legislative Director, Disabled American Veterans.
     Dennis Cullinan,
       National Legislative Director, Veterans of Foreign Wars of 
     the United States.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the VA is not prepared to deal with the 
soldiers who are coming home. So far 240,000 soldiers have come out of 
our service and are now available or have available to them veterans 
services; 50,000 already have asked the VA for care. This is an 
emergency.
  As I talked about this morning, in State after State, in Alaska, 
where priority 7 veterans who are not enrolled in VA primary care are 
not getting appointments to date; in Colorado, where they have a $7.25 
million shortage this year; in California where the VA hospital in Los 
Angeles has closed its psychiatric ward at the exact time we have 
generals telling us that at least 30 percent of our soldiers who are 
coming home from Iraq will need mental health care capacity and we have 
psychiatric emergency rooms being closed; in Florida, where there is 
$150 million deficit; in Idaho, where we have the Boise Idaho VA 
facility with a hiring freeze; in Kentucky, where we are having 
soldiers lie on broken tables because there is simply no money to 
replace any equipment there. In Maine, we have a $12 million deficit; 
in Minneapolis, $7 million shortfall--I remind the Senate, there are 
four facilities that see the most difficult, complex injuries once they 
have been discharged. Minnesota is one of them, and they have a $7 
million shortfall.
  The list goes on and on. This is an emergency. I cannot think of a 
more important issue facing our country today. I can't go home and look 
at my veterans in north central Washington who have to drive over a 
mountain pass 150 miles to get care today, who have been promised the 
health care clinic, and say: Sorry, my colleagues don't see this as an 
emergency.
  Any one of us who has taken the time to sit down with our soldiers 
when they are discharged from the service and out in their 
communities--they tell us the stories such as the Senator from Illinois 
talked about, about the help they need getting through the nightmares, 
the posttraumatic stress syndrome, getting help with serious injuries 
where they have lost arms and legs.
  We should not say on this Senate floor this is not an emergency. I am 
appalled that that is what the argument has come down to. I believe 
this vote is about whether we stand with our men and women. It is about 
whether you are going to vote with our veterans. I am stunned that 
there are those who say this one issue is not something that is an 
emergency.
  Any one of us who has been out there working with our veterans--I 
come to this floor as a daughter of a disabled veteran. I lived with my 
father who was in a wheelchair most of his lifetime. I worked at a VA 
hospital long before I even thought about being in the Senate. I worked 
at the Seattle VA hospital during the Vietnam war. Any one of us who 
has taken the time to talk to people who served in wars and have come 
home know that if we don't have the care for them, we are doing a 
disservice not only to the men and women who serve today, but to the 
men and women whom we are going to ask to serve us in the wars to come.
  This is an emergency. I don't care if the administration is saying 
the VA hospitals have the money they need. When we talk to them, they 
are all telling us they have a budget deficit, a hiring freeze; they 
are not replacing the doctors and nurses who are leaving, and they have 
equipment that is old, decrepit, falling apart, and dangerous. That is 
an emergency. It is one we have to deal with.
  Mr. President, I see my colleague from Minnesota on the floor. I 
yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Washington for 
her leadership on this very important amendment. I share her dismay and 
astonishment that the other side doesn't recognize this is an 
emergency. It is an emergency in Minnesota and to the Minneapolis 
veterans hospital, which has been designated as one of the primary 
recipients of those returning home injured in the war in Iraq, and 
which does not have the money even to meet the needs of veterans 
already in Minnesota, much less the additional demand.
  It seems to me incredible that anybody can say they support our 
troops, as we all do, but then when they come home injured, wounded, 
even maimed, we are not going to provide them with the resources 
necessary and everything they need to resume healthy and normal lives.
  This is a fundamental question of priorities for this body and for 
the administration. If we don't believe that sending soldiers to Iraq 
constitutes an emergency, if we don't believe that supplying them and 
equipping them, as we will vote to do--as I have supported every time 
and will again here--constitutes an emergency outside of the normal 
budget processes, but this instance now where we talk about providing 
health care to those most in need, in the most emergency-type 
situations of their lives imaginable, that this is not an emergency 
expenditure that should be approved unanimously by this body, then I 
frankly don't see how we can say with any integrity that we support our 
troops.
  We support our troops in Iraq and now we need to support them when 
they return home. This amendment of the Senator from Washington will 
accomplish that. I would be astonished if anyone in this body would 
oppose it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time do we have on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes 16 seconds.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I note that there is nobody from the 
other side on the floor. I am frankly not surprised, because I don't 
see how anyone can argue against making sure that our service men and 
women get the health care they need, whether it is for a mental or a 
physical need. We sent them to war. We should be there for them when 
they come home. Regarding this amendment, I have been trying to do this 
since the beginning of the year and I have been told this is not the 
time or the place.
  I let my colleagues know this is our last chance this year to make 
sure our veterans have the care they need. There is no other 
opportunity. We are going to get to the budget at some point and to the 
appropriations cycle, and we are going to get to the point where we 
have an appropriations bill on the floor, and the budget already says 
there is no more money. We hear the administration say--when we talk

[[Page S3465]]

about the VISNs, everyone tells us they don't have the resources. If 
you look at it, you will see these men and women don't have the care 
they need.

  Mr. DAYTON. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Yes.
  Mr. DAYTON. The Senator knows this is an emergency supplemental, so 
it is not subject to the normal budget process. In my 4-plus years 
here, I have not witnessed another occasion where a budget point of 
order has been raised against any part of the emergency supplemental 
appropriations. Is the Senator aware of this happening before, or are 
veterans being singled out in this instance?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have to agree with my colleague from 
Minnesota. I have not seen that done before. What we are going to vote 
on is whether our veterans are an emergency so they can be included in 
the supplemental.
  Mr. DAYTON. We are talking about an $82 billion supplemental here 
that the Senator has amended, which fits within the President's 
request--or most of it does. It is a small part of this, and it is the 
least we should be doing on behalf of veterans.
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is correct. Actually, the President sent us 
an $82 billion supplemental. The Senate is considering $80.1 billion. 
We have the means to still be less than what the President has sent us 
by adding this amendment. I sincerely cannot think of any other issue 
more important than to make sure that those men and women who served 
us, when they come home, have the services they need.
  Ms. STABENOW. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Yes.
  Ms. STABENOW. I first thank the Senator from Washington State. She is 
exactly on the mark. I have joined with her on a number of occasions 
and appreciate her leadership on this issue of veterans health care.
  Would she not agree that veterans should not have to go through the 
process every year, fighting every year to try to get what they need 
and, at the same time, knowing that they give us everything they are 
asked to do in terms of putting their lives on the line, keeping us 
safe? Our men and women in Iraq right now are doing that and we have 
made a promise to them. Would she not agree that as a country, every 
year it seems as though we are back here trying to keep the promise.
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Michigan is correct. Frankly, I have 
joined her in trying to make veteran services mandatory so we are not 
here. It is disturbing to me that we are desperately pleading to our 
colleagues to call this an emergency. What are we doing to our soldiers 
when we tell them we are in a desperate fight on the floor of the 
Senate that we are going to lose on a partisan vote over our veterans? 
That is the wrong message to send to the men and women in the services. 
It should be part of our budget, part of the appropriations every year, 
that if you serve your country, you get your care. We don't have that 
now, so we are here in our last-ditch effort, last attempt, last 
ability to try to provide these services for the men and women in the 
services.
  I find that appalling, but I will fight hard because I believe more 
than anything that we should be making sure if a young man or woman 
comes home from Iraq or Afghanistan, they are not turned away at their 
VA hospital. We need to make sure that anybody who serves in any war--
Vietnam, Korea, or anywhere--is not turned away at a VA hospital. They 
should not be put in a bed held together by duct tape. That is wrong. 
That is why we are here arguing now that this is an emergency, because 
we have not dealt with it in the past. We now have to deal with it, and 
I urge my colleagues to join with us on the last chance we have this 
year to keep our word to the men and women who have served this country 
honorably.

  Ms. STABENOW. Will my colleague yield?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes 15 seconds.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield for a question.
  Ms. STABENOW. I wanted to share with my colleague--and then ask a 
question--the fact that this is an emergency in Michigan. We have a big 
State, 10 million people, a very large State geographically, where 
folks often have to drive a long way in order to get to VA assistance. 
They are now in a situation of having to wait up to 6 months oftentimes 
to see a doctor and to get the services they need.
  I ask my colleague if she is hearing those similar stories around the 
country--that we wait 6 months, we drive hours and hours to get to a 
facility right now? Without the additional dollars, that is only going 
to continue and get worse. I wonder if that is what she is hearing as 
well.
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is exactly right. We are hearing that from 
every region, including yours. That is why this amendment is before us.
  I have little time left. I see some colleagues on the other side are 
on the floor. They are going to make their arguments. Again, this is an 
emergency; this is part of the supplemental. We should not tell our 
soldiers that they are not an emergency when they come home.
  I yield to my colleagues on the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to answer some of the concerns 
raised by the Senator from the State of Washington.
  First, there is not a Senator in the entire Senate who doesn't want 
to make sure that the veterans are taken care of, whether they served 
in World War I, II, Korea, or any other war. I have to say I am 
mentioning World War I because I was at a veterans event about 6 months 
ago, and I asked people to stand by the wars in which they served and I 
didn't mention World War I. This very irate veteran in a wheelchair in 
front of me suggested that I left out World War I. So I want to say 
that I am most appreciative of the veterans who are here having served 
in World War I and every other war.
  We want to take care of our veterans. We want to make sure that we 
have the money to do it. We do not have a supplemental request from the 
administration for the Veterans' Administration. This doesn't mean that 
some veterans hospitals out in our country are not saying they would 
like to have more money; it doesn't mean that a clinic hasn't been 
built yet that is on the drawing boards to be built. Most certainly, we 
have areas that we need to address in veterans care, and I want to make 
sure we have the money to do it.
  But I have to say that the Veterans' Administration is telling us 
they have the money they need to fulfill this year's budget and, 
specifically, to fulfill their needs.
  We asked the Secretary of Veterans Affairs if he needed more money in 
the 2005 year--the year we are in budgetwise--for returning veterans 
from the Iraqi war and from the Afghanistan area. The answer was: No, 
we have everything we need to cover those veterans. We asked him if he 
needed more money than was in the current Presidential budget for 2006, 
which we will be considering in my subcommittee for those same 
returning veterans. The answer was: No, we have enough in that budget.
  Now, I have to say that, as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs 
Subcommittee in Appropriations, I am going to look at that and I am 
going to try to determine for myself if there is enough for 2006. But I 
have to say in this budget year, 2005, which has about 6 more months to 
run, the Veterans Affairs Department says they have enough to cover 
Iraq and Afghanistan.
  This does not mean everything is going exactly the way I would want 
it in the Veterans' Administration. There is a hospital in Dallas that 
is particularly being noted by the GAO investigators as not performing 
up to the standards we would expect, and I am asking our Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs to address that particular hospital. I am sure there 
are other specific instances.
  It is not that we do not have the money put in there. It is that we 
have had a management problem there, and we are seeking to address that 
situation immediately.
  I asked the Secretary to put in writing what the situation is, and I 
ask

[[Page S3466]]

unanimous consent that the April 5, 2005, letter be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                     The Secretary


                                          of Veterans Affairs,

                                    Washington, DC, April 5, 2005.
     Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans 
         Affairs, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Chairman: Before I begin the main purpose of 
     this letter, I want to take this opportunity to thank you for 
     the consideration and interest you have shown VA through your 
     leadership in this year's appropriation hearing and many 
     other endeavors on behalf of our veterans. I very much 
     appreciate your proactive involvement and commitment to 
     providing for those who have served this country with such 
     dedication.
       I write to you today to address certain issues regarding 
     VA's FY 2005 fiscal situation. I know some have said that VA 
     must have emergency supplemental funds to continue providing 
     the services for which veterans depend on us--timely health 
     care and delivery of benefits. Whenever trends indicate the 
     need for refocusing priorities, VA's leaders ensure prudent 
     use of reserve funding for these purposes. That is just 
     simply part of good management. It does not, however, 
     indicate a ``dire emergency''. I can assure you that VA does 
     not need emergency supplemental funds in FY 2005 to continue 
     to provide the timely, quality service that is always our 
     goal. We will, as always, continue to monitor workload and 
     resources to be sure we have a sustainable balance. But 
     certainly for the remainder of this year, I do not foresee 
     any challenges that are not solvable within our own 
     management decision capability.
       I look forward to continuing to work with you as we strive 
     to provide the very best service possible for those veterans 
     who depend on us the most. Thank you again for your 
     leadership in this important area.
           Sincerely yours,
                                               R. James Nicholson.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Now, that is the Secretary of Veterans Affairs who 
says there is reserve funding available if an emergency arises, and the 
Veterans Affairs Department does not need extra funding.
  One thing has to be determined, and that is the difference between 
people who are returning who are on active duty, who are at our 
military hospitals, who are being treated in the Department of Defense 
because they are active duty. The Veterans Affairs Department is where 
the people who are going out of our military service go for their 
health care. There are fewer coming home in the Veterans Affairs' 
influence where they would be giving the service, as opposed to active 
duty where they are going to Bethesda, Walter Reed, and other hospitals 
that are treating our Active-Duty military.
  So I think we have to look at where the Veterans Affairs part of this 
budget is, and do they need more. In fact, of the 240,000 who have gone 
out of our service in the last 3 years, only 48,000 have even come in 
to the Veterans Affairs service capability. Some already have 
insurance. Some might come later but that is something that we can 
monitor. Right now, we are told we have the reserve funding to be able 
to handle anyone who is going out of Active-Duty service, out of 
Active-Duty military health care and into the Veterans' Administration, 
and that we have the money to cover it.
  So I do not want to take the $2 billion that is in this amendment out 
of other areas such as our armed services, our Active-Duty military who 
are on the ground, the equipment we are giving them in this 
supplemental. That is why I must oppose Senator Murray's amendment, 
although I do agree with her overall goal and will continue to work 
with her as chairman of the subcommittee to monitor the situation. Let 
us get our numbers right. Let us act when it is on the budget with the 
hearings and the anticipation of the needs, rather than adding $2 
billion to the emergency appropriations that is before us today and 
taking it from something else, such as Active-Duty military equipment 
and preventive measures that we must cover for those who are on the 
ground today.
  With all of this said, we will reach our goal of assuring the very 
best military veterans' care not by adding $2 billion to the funding 
for the next 6 months but, instead, planning for it since we are told 
by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs we have the money we need for this 
year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). Who yields time? The Senator 
from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the Senator from West Virginia was not 
able to be on the Senate floor when this was initially discussed, and 
in deference to his right to speak on this amendment, I yield 10 
minutes from our side to the Senator from West Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, Senator Cochran of Mississippi, for his 
generosity and for his very gracious and courteous action in this 
regard. I thank him for the time. I will not use the entire 10 minutes. 
I take it I may yield some of that time, if I wish, to other Senators.
  The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have strained America. The cost of 
these wars has strained the Federal budget. The deployments of the 
National Guard and the Reserves have strained American families. The 
toll of the wars on our troops and their equipment has strained the 
readiness of our Armed Forces. But there is no one who bears more of 
the strains of these wars than the veterans who have served our country 
in combat.
  According to the Department of Defense, nearly 12,000 troops have 
been wounded in Iraq and another 442 have been wounded in Afghanistan. 
These troops have received the finest medical care our military can 
offer, but untold numbers of service men and women will require long-
term care from the Department of Veterans Affairs. However, the VA is 
also feeling the strains of war. VA hospitals are seeing more and more 
veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time the 
aging veterans from World War II, Korea, and Vietnam are most in need 
of the VA's health care services, to which they are entitled. However, 
the administration has not met this growing demand for VA health care 
services with budget increases.

  Fortunately, Congress has stepped in and added billions in needed 
funds in recent years. Last year, Congress added $1.2 billion to the 
President's request for veterans health care. Two years ago, Congress 
added $1.57 billion to the President's budget for VA health care. But 
the shortfalls in the veterans budget continue. The Disabled American 
Veterans, in its independent budget for fiscal year 2006, estimated 
that the White House budget for VA health care is $3.4 billion less 
than what is required to care for all veterans who are entitled to 
care. Clearly, more needs to be done to care for veterans.
  The Murray-Akaka-Byrd, and others, amendment would increase veterans 
health care by $1.98 billion. These funds are targeted to provide care 
for veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan to increase mental 
health services and to support local VA hospitals and clinics. This is 
a commonsense amendment to support the men and the women who have borne 
the wounds of battle. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair and again thank my chairman, Mr. Cochran.
  May I yield the remaining time to Senator Murray and Senator Akaka?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield some of that time to the Senator 
from Hawaii, as much time as he will choose to use.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee, 
Senator Cochran, and also Senator Byrd and Senator Murray for the time.
  Mr. President, the amendment before us addresses the costs of 
providing health care to troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  My colleagues in the Senate have already recognized the need to 
provide funds that would allow VA to absorb an influx of new patients 
from Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom. We recognized that need in 
2003, when Congress added $175 million for VA to the Supplemental 
Appropriations bill. I again point out that this amount was provided 
only one month after the war in Iraq began and before we knew about the 
level of troop commitment.
  Does this body believe that things are better in VA today or that 
massive

[[Page S3467]]

amounts of troops will not actually come for care? I don't think so.
  Our amendment allows VA to provide care for returning troops--without 
displacing those veterans currently using the system.
  The amount of this amendment--$1.9 billion--is drawn from what we 
know about past use of the VA health care system coupled with what we 
know to be the costs associated with preparing VA for veterans from the 
global war on terror.
  Earlier we shared data and stories from VA hospitals and clinics 
across the country. My colleagues on the other side refute the fact 
that facilities are in crisis situation. I urge my colleagues to talk 
to VA personnel in their home States.
  Perhaps the administration is reluctant to share details of budget 
shortfalls. Or perhaps network directors have not been allowed to 
request additional money. But these deficits are real, and they are 
deficits which will hurt veterans. In my mind that is an emergency.
  To reiterate: we know of shortfalls in each and every State. The 
worst deficits are occurring in Florida, South Dakota, New Hampshire, 
Washington State, Iowa, and Ohio. These are not fiction.
  I urge my colleagues to do what is right for VA hospitals and the 
veterans served by them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time is left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. How much time is left on the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remain 14\1/2\ minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I do not see anybody on the other side 
who is going to speak. Let me just reiterate for everyone here. What we 
are talking about is an amendment for veterans, to make sure they have 
the health care and support they need when they come home from the war 
in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan.
  What we have been very clear about is in every region across this 
country there is a debt and a shortfall. We have facilities that are 
decaying, and no money is being put in to fix them. We have long 
waiting lines. We have veterans in rural areas who are being told they 
cannot have health clinics. We are being told that veterans, the men 
and women who served us, have to travel over mountain passes and travel 
long distances to get the care they need. Most of it is inaccessible.
  We are telling veterans who live in urban areas that the long lines 
in which they are waiting have to be there. We are telling suburban 
parents if they send their young son or daughter off to war, we are not 
going to be there for them when they come home.
  I believe this is a emergency. I have outlined it this morning. I 
have outlined it again this afternoon. I heard from our colleagues on 
the other side that the Veterans Affairs Secretary, Secretary 
Nicholson, is saying he has the money he needs. He was on the job for 2 
weeks when he said that. I invite the Secretary and any one of us to go 
out on the ground, go out to Michigan and Minnesota, go to Kentucky, go 
to Illinois, go to California, go to Texas, go to Idaho, go to any 
veterans facility and look and tell me there is not an emergency. Look 
in the eye of any VA doctor or nurse and tell them there is not an 
emergency. But more importantly, look in the eyes of the young men and 
women who served us.
  I was in Iraq and Kuwait several weeks ago. I had to look in the eyes 
of 150 Guard and Reserve members who had just finished in Iraq for a 
year. Their No. 1 concern is they are hearing the facilities will not 
be available for them when they get home. Their No. 1 concern? Stress. 
A year on the ground in Iraq. They had heard from soldiers who had 
already gone home about the troubles they had with migraines, post-
traumatic stress syndrome, reintegrating in the community. They want to 
come home, and we know the support is not there, and we tell them that 
is not an emergency.
  I find it outrageous that this body can send to war our sons and 
daughters, husbands and wives, and say we will not be there for you 
when you come home; that we will tell them you will have to wait, your 
budgets are not a priority, your issues are not a concern to this body. 
I cannot think of a more important issue, I cannot think of a more 
important emergency, and I cannot think of anywhere else we are going 
to be able to deal with this this year.
  If we do not provide the funds on the emergency supplemental before 
us, we will be here a year from now with story after story of young men 
and women who served us and then came home and were told no. That is an 
emergency.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we had a full debate of this issue. This 
is not the first time this issue has been presented to the Senate. As a 
matter of fact, before this fiscal year began, 2005, there was a 
question about how much money would be needed by the Veterans' 
Administration to provide health care benefits and other services to 
veterans.
  The President had submitted a budget request for this year, but after 
hearings in our Appropriations Committee, the subcommittee recommended 
an increase over and above what the President had requested.
  As we all know, there is a considerable time gap after the 
President's completion of his budget submission. The hearing process 
takes place in Congress, a budget resolution is developed, and then the 
Appropriations Committee conducts hearings and reviews what the facts 
are and if there have been any changes in the situation that can be 
reflected in the recommendations made in the Appropriations Committee.
  Last year, the Appropriations subcommittee recommended to the full 
committee an increase in funding over and above the request of the 
President by $1.2 billion--a substantial increase. That was approved.
  In this fiscal year's budget which we are now talking about, the 
President has already received $1.2 billion that he did not request. As 
we moved into the year, there have been suggestions that additional 
funds might be needed. We are already, though, preparing for the next 
fiscal year, 2006. The other day when we had a budget resolution before 
the Senate, this was again presented as an issue to the Senate. 
Senators offered an amendment and debated it, and we had a vote on that 
resolution. By a vote of 53 to 47, an amendment by the Senator from 
Hawaii to add about $3 billion to the budget resolution was defeated by 
the Senate. It was well debated. It was considered carefully. And here 
we are again.
  We have an emergency supplemental now on the floor of the Senate 
dealing with funds needed to successfully complete, we hope, operations 
in Iraq and Afghanistan at the soonest possible date so we can have a 
more stable and peaceful situation, not only in that part of the world 
but in the war against terror generally, to protect the security of 
American citizens.
  This supplemental is directed, in large part, to that concern and to 
those needs--the needs of the Department of Defense and the Department 
of State for depleted accounts in programs under the jurisdiction of 
that department.
  There are some other accounts that are funded in this urgent 
supplemental, but there are no funds requested by the administration 
for the Veterans' Administration programs.
  The other day there was a hearing on this subject. The Secretary, as 
the distinguished Senator from Texas pointed out, was questioned about 
the need for additional funds by the Veterans' Administration. The 
answer was unequivocal. It was clear. It was precise. Then, to clarify 
that, the Senator from Washington said that was weeks ago, that was 
early, and all the needs weren't known then. Here is the letter, dated 
April 5, 2005. This is what the Secretary of the Veterans' 
Administration said in response to the suggestions being made by the 
proponent of this amendment:

       I can assure you that VA does not need emergency 
     supplemental funds in FY 2005 to continue to provide the 
     timely quality service that is always our goal. We will, as 
     always continue to monitor workload and resources to be sure 
     we have a sustainable balance, but certainly for the 
     remainder of this year I do not foresee any challenges that 
     are not solvable within our own management decision 
     capability.

  That is about as clear and persuasive a statement about the need for 
the

[[Page S3468]]

funds at this time, for the remainder of this fiscal year, as you could 
possibly ask for by the person who has the responsibility for carrying 
out these programs and administering these programs for the benefit of 
our Nation's veterans.
  There is another point I am going to make before my time expires.
  The Secretary testified not only were the funds sufficient for fiscal 
year 2005 but that the financial plan is manageable. He said the 
Department is not in a crisis requiring emergency appropriations.
  Then, on the point of the number of servicemen coming back to the 
States from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the highest projection 
that has been made, if one looks at the numbers of persons entering the 
VA system in any given 1 year, the highest projection might be 48,000.
  To put that in perspective with respect to the entire system and the 
entire workload of the Veterans' Administration, returning service 
members from the Iraqi war entering the VA system will be less than 1 
percent of the total VA population.
  The Senator from Texas made a point that was very persuasive. I think 
it should be repeated; that is, most veterans who are coming back to 
the States at this point and need medical care are still in the 
Department of Defense. They are at Walter Reed. They are at other 
hospitals that are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense. 
They are not going to the veterans hospitals. People who are coming 
back from Iraq are a small percentage of the population, and they are 
not as likely as older veterans to need services from the Veterans' 
Administration. The older veterans in the system are a much larger 
group and require more appointments, medical care, and assistance 
medications than the younger population coming into the system now.
  For these reasons, I urge the Senate to reject the request of the 
Senators to open this emergency supplemental bill and add the 
additional $1.9 billion that has been requested.
  I am prepared to yield the remainder of our time. I think we talked 
about the vote being scheduled for 3:30. As I understand, there is 
before the Chair a motion on the part of the Senator from Washington to 
waive the Budget Act. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has moved to waive the point of 
order that was raised against her amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I ask for the yeas and nays on that motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have been ordered on that motion.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I yield the floor and I yield our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I understand the other side yielded this 
time. Let me simply respond by saying we are talking about a 
supplemental bill that talks about the cost of the war. Part of the 
cost of war is caring for the men and women when they return home. As 
President Lincoln said:

       We all have an obligation to care for him who shall have 
     borne the battle and for his widow and for his orphan.

  That is what this vote is about, whether we carry forward our 
obligations to care for those we sent to war.
  I ask my colleagues to vote with us to override this motion that says 
this is not an emergency so our veterans can receive the care they 
deserve.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 46, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 89 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--54

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). On this vote the yeas are 46, 
the nays are 54. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not 
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The point of order is sustained and the emergency designation is 
removed.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I make the point of order that the 
amendment violates section 302 of the Budget Act.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable sections 
of the Budget Act, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, what we voted on was whether to make the 
VA funding emergency funding. This vote is to say that the veterans 
funding is a priority for this Congress.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 46, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 90 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--54

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 46, the nays are 
54. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. ALLARD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I request 15 minutes to speak on the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the fiscal year 
2005 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill. I commend Senator 
Cochran, the manager of this bill and the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, for the way he has put together this bill. 
His leadership was critical in ensuring that provisions in this bill 
are truly emergencies and are vital to our troops in the field.

[[Page S3469]]

  I also acknowledge the work done by Senator Stevens, the chairman of 
the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. Most of the funding in this 
bill comes from his subcommittee, and I know he has worked hard to 
ensure every penny will be wisely spent.
  Both Senator Cochran and Senator Stevens have also gone out of their 
way to assist me and Senator McConnell in tackling an important issue 
related to our nation's chemical weapons stockpile. I will discuss this 
issue in greater detail in a moment.
  The bill before us includes critically-needed funding for our men and 
women in uniform. It also ensures that the operations against the 
global war on terror is not interrupted. It provides certain benefits 
for our troops, including an increased death gratuity, life insurance 
extensions, and hazardous pay. I strongly support these provisions and 
believe they will greatly enhance the effectiveness of our military 
forces.
  The bill also includes several provisions related to the Department 
of Defense chemical demilitarization program. These provisions seek to 
force the Department of Defense to move forward with the design and 
construction of two chemical weapons destruction facilities at Pueblo, 
CO and Blue Grass, KY.
  Since the program's inception, the Department of Defense management 
has been dismal and ineffective. The program is behind schedule and 
over-budget. In 1986, Congress was told that the program was going to 
be completed before 2007 at a cost of approximately $2.1 billion. And 
now, we are told the program could possibly cost as much as $37 billion 
and be completed as late as 2030.
  The Department of Defense has consistently failed to provide 
sufficient funding for this program, forcing those who run it to make 
programmatic decisions that pit demilitarization sites against each 
other.
  The Department of Defense has failed to provide adequate program 
management. It has repeatedly stopped and restarted design work and 
operations, adding huge start-up costs and considerable schedule 
delays.
  The department has failed effectively to communicate its intentions 
and plans to the States in which permitting is necessary, nor to local 
communities whose support is essential.
  An example of these failures is the department's handling of the 
destruction of the chemical weapons stockpile at the Pueblo Depot in 
Colorado. In 2002, the department accelerated the destruction of the 
weapons at Pueblo with the goal of completing its work by the 2012 
Chemical Weapons Convention deadline.
  However, in 2004, the department changed its mind. Without telling 
Congress, the State of Colorado, or the people in Pueblo, the 
department unilaterally decided to cease all design work and assign the 
project in Pueblo to in care-taker status for the next 6 years.
  After six months of no activity, the Department of Defense changed 
its mind again. It ordered a study on whether the stockpile in Pueblo 
should be relocated to an operational incineration site, even though 
such an option is illegal under current law and has already been 
studied at least three times in the past.
  A month after that, the department changed its mind again by ordering 
the start of preparatory construction and the redesign of the facility.
  Today, the future of the project still remains uncertain and judging 
by the department's past performance, it seems likely that the project 
will be changed many more times.
  I am frustrated, and the people of Colorado are frustrated. Try as we 
might, we cannot seem to get straight answers from the department. One 
day I was told by department officials that the stockpile would not be 
relocated outside of Colorado. The very next day, the department 
ordered the study of transportation options.
  In an Armed Services Committee hearing yesterday, the only answer we 
could get out of department officials was that they needed to conduct 
more studies on the technology and more studies on transportation 
options. From my perspective, we can study this issue into eternity and 
never get anything done. It is time to move forward with destroying 
these weapons. It is time to eliminate the danger these weapons pose to 
the local communities. And, it is time for the department to recognize 
the necessity of complying with our international obligations.
  I am very troubled by the Department of Defense's apparent 
willingness to violate the Chemical Weapons Convention, a treaty this 
body ratified. I believe the United States has a moral obligation to 
comply with it. Our Nation's reputation and moral standing are at 
stake.
  If we are not careful, we will find it impossible to hold others to 
this treaty and to other treaties as well.
  The department seems to be on a path towards blaming Congress for its 
future non-compliance. Yesterday, a DoD official actually told the 
Armed Services Committee that it would be the fault of Congress if the 
department could not meet the treaty deadline. This official seems to 
believe that relocating the stockpiles in Pueblo and Kentucky to 
operational sites would solve the problem.
  I strongly reject that line of thinking. Congress is not to blame for 
the department's bungling of this program. The fact is that the 
Congress has been more than willing to provide the funds and political 
support to get this program done. Last year alone, the Congress added 
$50 million for the project at Pueblo. I am certain that if the 
Department of Defense requested additional funding for the overall 
program, Congress would be more than willing to support its request.
  The fact of the matter is that the department has been trying to 
destroy these weapons since 1986, nearly 20 years, and has spent 
billions upon billion of taxpayer's hard-earned dollars. And yet we 
have destroyed less than 40 percent of our Nation's stockpile, which is 
no where near the 100 percent requirement of the Chemical Weapons 
Convention.
  Let us also be clear that Congress has been very up front about the 
transport of chemical munitions across State lines. The law that 
prohibits this activity has been on the books since 1994. Nothing has 
changed since then. In fact, such a proposal would be dead on arrival 
if the department ever offered it in this Congress.
  Let there be no mistake about it: I will fight this proposal.
  The department should heed the words of Congress and get on with the 
business of destroying these weapons. Conducting more studies is a 
waste of time and money. We need to move forward, and we need to move 
forward now.
  I believe it is important at this point to mention I am not alone in 
this fight. The senior Senator from Kentucky, Mitch McConnell has been 
pushing the department to destroy our chemical weapons stockpile for 
nearly two decades. Over this time, he has led the fight in forcing the 
department to work with State and local communities to get this program 
off the ground.
  There is no doubt in Senator McConnell's mind or in my mind that the 
department has been inconsistent and unreliable regarding this program. 
We both strongly believe that it is past time for Congress to 
intervene.
  That is why we worked with Senator Cochran and Senator Stevens to 
include four provisions related to the Chemical Demilitarization 
program in this bill. These provisions will require the department to 
stop dragging its feet and move forward with the design and 
construction of the chemical demilitarization facilities in Pueblo, CO, 
and Blue Grass, KY.
  Specifically, the provisions in this bill will require the Department 
to do the following:
  transfer within 30 days all previous funding appropriated for the 
Pueblo and Blue Grass facilities to the program manager of the ACWA 
program;
  require the Program Manager to spend at least $100 million within 120 
days;
  prevent the department from using the funding appropriated for the 
Pueblo and Blue Grass for any other purpose; and
  prohibit the use of appropriated funding from any study pertaining to 
the transportation of chemical weapons across state lines.
  These provisions prevent the department from dragging its feet and 
requiring more studies. The treaty deadline is fast approaching and 
cannot be ignored. The department must move quickly if we are to comply 
with the treaty, and I assure you today that we intend to hold them to 
it.

[[Page S3470]]

  I thank the chair for the opportunity to speak on the supplemental 
appropriations bill. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and get 
this funding to our troops as quickly as possible.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, for the information of Senators, there 
are no other amendments that I know of that will be offered this 
afternoon or this evening. There were two amendments that were offered 
earlier in the day which we set aside to dispose of the amendment of 
the Senator from Washington. These are offered by the Senator from 
Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, amendments numbered 333 and 334. It will 
be the intention of the manager of the bill to move to table these 
amendments when we convene tomorrow. We will be pleased to continue to 
set them aside and have them available for debate during the remainder 
of today's session. So if Senators want to speak on these amendments, 
this is the time to do it. Tomorrow when we convene and go to the bill, 
it will be the intention to move to table these amendments if there is 
no further debate.
  In the meantime, we encourage Senators to let the managers know of 
their amendments that need to be considered to the bill. We are 
prepared to move forward. We remind Senators that this is an emergency 
appropriations bill. These funds are needed so that the Departments of 
Defense and State can proceed with other agencies that are funded in 
this bill to carry out their responsibilities.
  We know that after we complete action on the bill here in the Senate, 
we will have to confer with the House to work out differences between 
the House-passed and Senate-passed bills. That will require some time 
as well.
  This is a matter of some urgency. We encourage the Senate to continue 
to consider the bill and act expeditiously on amendments that may be 
offered so we can complete action on the bill and work with our 
colleagues in the House to have a final bill presented to the President 
as soon as possible. We appreciate very much having the cooperation of 
all Senators in that regard.
  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. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending 
business be set aside and I be allowed to file an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 356

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for himself, Ms. 
     Mikulski, Mr. Allen, and Mr. Corzine, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 356.

  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To ensure that a Federal employee who takes leave without pay 
 in order to perform service as a member of the uniformed services or 
member of the National Guard shall continue to receive pay in an amount 
which, when taken together with the pay and allowances such individual 
is receiving for such service, will be no less than the basic pay such 
individual would then be receiving if no interruption in employment had 
                               occurred)

       On page 153, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:

     SEC. 1110. NONREDUCTION IN PAY WHILE FEDERAL EMPLOYEE IS 
                   PERFORMING ACTIVE SERVICE IN THE UNIFORMED 
                   SERVICES OR NATIONAL GUARD.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Reservists Pay Security Act of 2005''.
       (b) In General.--Subchapter IV of chapter 55 of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 5538. Nonreduction in pay while serving in the 
       uniformed services or National Guard

       ``(a) An employee who is absent from a position of 
     employment with the Federal Government in order to perform 
     active duty in the uniformed services pursuant to a call or 
     order to active duty under a provision of law referred to in 
     section 101(a)(13)(B) of title 10 shall be entitled, while 
     serving on active duty, to receive, for each pay period 
     described in subsection (b), an amount equal to the amount by 
     which--
       ``(1) the amount of basic pay which would otherwise have 
     been payable to such employee for such pay period if such 
     employee's civilian employment with the Government had not 
     been interrupted by that service, exceeds (if at all);
       ``(2) the amount of pay and allowances which (as determined 
     under subsection (d))--
       ``(A) is payable to such employee for that service; and
       ``(B) is allocable to such pay period.
       ``(b)(1) Amounts under this section shall be payable with 
     respect to each pay period (which would otherwise apply if 
     the employee's civilian employment had not been 
     interrupted)--
       ``(A) during which such employee is entitled to 
     reemployment rights under chapter 43 of title 38 with respect 
     to the position from which such employee is absent (as 
     referred to in subsection (a)); and
       ``(B) for which such employee does not otherwise receive 
     basic pay (including by taking any annual, military, or other 
     paid leave) to which such employee is entitled by virtue of 
     such employee's civilian employment with the Government.
       ``(2) For purposes of this section, the period during which 
     an employee is entitled to reemployment rights under chapter 
     43 of title 38--
       ``(A) shall be determined disregarding the provisions of 
     section 4312(d) of title 38; and
       ``(B) shall include any period of time specified in section 
     4312(e) of title 38 within which an employee may report or 
     apply for employment or reemployment following completion of 
     service on active duty to which called or ordered as 
     described in subsection (a).
       ``(c) Any amount payable under this section to an employee 
     shall be paid--
       ``(1) by such employee's employing agency;
       ``(2) from the appropriation or fund which would be used to 
     pay the employee if such employee were in a pay status; and
       ``(3) to the extent practicable, at the same time and in 
     the same manner as would basic pay if such employee's 
     civilian employment had not been interrupted.
       ``(d) The Office of Personnel Management shall, in 
     consultation with Secretary of Defense, prescribe any 
     regulations necessary to carry out the preceding provisions 
     of this section.
       ``(e)(1) The head of each agency referred to in section 
     2302(a)(2)(C)(ii) shall, in consultation with the Office, 
     prescribe procedures to ensure that the rights under this 
     section apply to the employees of such agency.
       ``(2) The Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration shall, in consultation with the Office, 
     prescribe procedures to ensure that the rights under this 
     section apply to the employees of that agency.
       ``(f) For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) the terms `employee', `Federal Government', and 
     `uniformed services' have the same respective meanings as 
     given them in section 4303 of title 38;
       ``(2) the term `employing agency', as used with respect to 
     an employee entitled to any payments under this section, 
     means the agency or other entity of the Government (including 
     an agency referred to in section 2302(a)(2)(C)(ii)) with 
     respect to which such employee has reemployment rights under 
     chapter 43 of title 38; and
       ``(3) the term `basic pay' includes any amount payable 
     under section 5304.''.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     55 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 5537 the following:

``5538. Nonreduction in pay while serving in the uniformed services or 
              National Guard.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to pay periods (as described in 
     section 5538(b) of title 5, United States Code, as amended by 
     this section) beginning on or after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have offered this amendment before. It 
has passed the Senate twice. For some reason, as soon as it passes the 
Senate and goes to a conference committee, it disappears, it dies. I 
don't understand it. It seems that the Senate by overwhelming numbers 
supports the concept of this amendment, but somewhere, either in the 
executive branch of this Government or in the House of Representatives, 
there is opposition to this amendment.
  When I explain the amendment and what it does, you may be as puzzled 
as I am. Here is what the amendment says in a few words: If you are a 
Federal employee who is activated to serve in either a Guard or Reserve 
unit, the Federal Government will make up the difference in pay while 
you serve.
  That is it. You understand, I am sure, as we all do, that we have 
thousands of men and women across America who are members of Guard and 
Reserve units who are now being activated and deployed overseas for 
extended periods

[[Page S3471]]

of time, interrupting their daily lives and putting some hardship on 
their families and their businesses, but they serve their country. We 
find that many employers have decided to do not only the right thing 
but the patriotic thing and have said: We will stand behind our 
employees. If they are going to serve America, we will make up any loss 
of pay which they experience during the period of their service 
activation.
  It is something we all applaud. In fact, the President has given 
speeches about it. There are not too many Senators who have not given 
speeches applauding those employers who stand behind these Guard 
families and Reserve families.
  It turns out, when we look at all the employers across America, there 
is one notable omission. The U.S. Government does not make up the 
difference in pay between the guardsmen and reservists who are 
activated. So you find many Federal employees going off to serve our 
country are serving next to someone from the private sector who has the 
helping hand of their employer while those employees of our Federal 
Government are being disadvantaged.
  America's Federal employees are a valuable asset to our Nation, not 
just in the public service they perform every day to keep America's 
Government going but today about 120,000 Federal employees serve 
America as well in the National Guard or Reserve--120,000. Indeed, 
about 17,000 have been mobilized and deployed overseas as I speak--
17,000 Federal employees. Unfortunately, their employer, the U.S. 
Federal Government, lags behind leading businesses and States and local 
governments, which provide support to their workers who are activated. 
The Federal Government does not.
  The amendment I propose is an opportunity to correct this 
shortcoming, update the Federal Government's support for these workers, 
and keep pace with the high standards set by other employers. For many 
years now every employer in America has had to consider how to respond 
to having workers activated in the Guard and Reserve. In times of 
peace, companies must accommodate staffing, schedule duties for the 
requirement for workers to be sent for training or drills. The law 
requires that they do this, and they follow the law.
  In wartime, however, workers can be called away for duty for months, 
sometimes even years. It is a big challenge for employers.
  How are they responding? What we have seen since 9/11 is that 
America's business communities and State and local governments not only 
provide the employment and reemployment protections required by law, 
but many of them go above and beyond requirement and patriotically 
provide even greater benefits and protections for their workers 
mobilized for duty in the Guard and Reserve. Many of these same 
businesses and State and local governments continue health insurance 
and fringe benefits for the families of those Guard and Reserve 
soldiers who are overseas. Some provide continued full salary for a few 
months, and more and more employers make up the difference in lost pay 
that the workers suffered during mobilization.
  Covering the pay gap is an important benefit because some Reserve 
component members suffer a loss of income during mobilization. A 
recently released Department of Defense study in May of 2004 reveals 
that 51 percent of the members of our National Guard and Reserve suffer 
a loss of income when mobilized for long periods of active duty because 
military pay is less than pay in their civilian jobs. The average 
reservist loses $368 a month. That calculates out to about $4,300 a 
year in income. For many families, that $368 a month has a significant 
impact. Not only must they deal with the absence of someone they love 
but now on top of it must also tighten the family financial belt a 
notch or two and endure a decline in perhaps their standard of living, 
pressure on the family back home, and certainly more pressure on the 
soldier who worries about them as they serve our country overseas.
  While the average monthly income loss was $368, the DOD Status of 
Forces Survey found that some reservists were losing a lot more. Eleven 
percent of all reservists report losing income of more than $2,500 a 
month, $30,000 a year for the year that they are activated and 
deployed. That is a huge sacrifice to make in the service of your 
country on top of risking your life every single day.
  The Department of Defense operates a program called Employer Support 
of the Guard and Reserve--ESGR for short. Its purpose is to help 
employers understand and comply with the new law regarding protections 
for members of the Reserve. The program highlights and recognizes those 
employers who do more than the law requires, particularly those who are 
supportive of the Guard and Reserve.
  To publicize these outstanding employers, ESGR lists them on their 
Web site. If you scroll down the Web site, you will see listed more 
than 1,000 companies across America, nonprofit organizations, State and 
local governments, all of which stand behind their Guard and Reserve 
while the Federal Government does not. Of those that are listed, more 
than 900 are saluted for providing pay differential. Think of it: 900 
companies, 900 units of government that say, We will stand behind that 
soldier, we will make up the difference in pay.
  On the first page, you will see 3M, A.G. Edwards, Abbot Laboratories, 
ADT Security Service, and Aetna. That is just the beginning. If you 
scroll down, you will see ICBM. I am proud to say you will see Sears & 
Roebuck from my State of Illinois, General Motors, United Parcel 
Service, and Ford Motor Company. In my State of Illinois, not only 
Sears but Boeing, State Farm Insurance, the State of Illinois, the city 
of Chicago, and many other Illinois companies, local governments, and 
institutions cover the pay differential for Reserve and Guard members 
called to active duty.

  More and more American employers are providing a pay differential 
benefit to their workers who are mobilized for active duty. The number 
of ``outstanding employers'' recognized on the ESGR Web site for 
providing pay differential has been steadily growing. Even as the war 
goes on, more and more companies are stepping up for their people. They 
are stepping up in the private sector for their employees. How can we 
in the Federal Government do anything less? While the major employers 
in America are rushing to support the guardsmen and reservists, our 
Federal Government has not done so.
  In a recently released DOD survey, they asked Reserve component 
members what factors they took into consideration before they decided 
to leave the National Guard and Reserve.
  Let me show you that list. First, as I mentioned earlier, 51 percent 
of those in the Reserve who are activated lose income when they are 
mobilized, and 11 percent lose more than $2,500 per month.
  I also mentioned this Web site. The employer-supported Guard and 
Reserve Web site based out of Arlington, VA, has a long list of over 
1,000 employers who helped their activated Guard and soldiers, and 900 
of them have provided pay differential for indefinite periods of time, 
some for 12 months and some for 6 months. But they are standing behind 
their Guard and Reserve units.
  When you take a look at the number of outstanding employers who are 
making a greater sacrifice for their members of Guard and Reserve 
units, look at what happened since October of 2003. The number of 
employers making the pay differential for their employees called to 
Reserve duty has been increasing. But the U.S. Government is still not 
one of them. They ask the members of the Reserve and Guard: Why didn't 
you re-up, why didn't you reenlist? Here are the reasons they gave in a 
survey: 95 percent said it was too great a family burden, 91 percent 
said too many activations and deployments, 90 percent said activations-
deployments are too long, and 78 percent said income lost.
  This is a factor in retention and recruitment. It is a factor in the 
lifestyles of these families of Guard and Reserve unit members.
  How can we come before this Congress asking for additional funds for 
the soldiers overseas and overlook the obvious? The Federal Government 
is not providing its share of helping these same soldiers. How can we 
throw bouquets, as we should, to all of these other employers who meet 
their responsibility and fail to meet our own?
  With recruiting numbers falling short in virtually every branch of 
service, we need to do everything we can to

[[Page S3472]]

lessen the burden. By ensuring Federal employees, if they are 
mobilized, that their families will not have to endure loss of income, 
we can help reduce one of the major factors that drive people away from 
the Guard and Reserve.
  This measure is not only good employee support, it is not only in 
keeping with the standards established by other leading employers, it 
is not only the patriotic thing to do, it is prudent management of our 
Reserve component forces. Reserve component soldiers face different 
family and professional situations than Active-Duty soldiers. They must 
not only perform military duties in addition to their civilian career, 
they have to shift back and forth between these two responsibilities.
  Additionally, these Reserve component soldiers bring to their 
military service something special: all of their accumulated civilian 
time and civilian career experience.
  In Iraq, thanks to Guard and Reserve forces, we have experienced 
teachers, construction supervisors, civil administrators, engineers, 
professionals over a wide range of skills, skills particularly helpful 
in rebuilding that ravaged nation. This derives from the unique nature 
of the Reserve component service and its value to the nation we must 
protect.
  This provision has already passed the Senate twice. In October 2003, 
it was agreed to by vote of 96 to 3 as an amendment to the supplemental 
for fiscal year 2004. In June of 2004, it was agreed to by a voice vote 
as an amendment to the national defense authorization bill. On both 
occasions, I watched as this measure went into the bipartisan 
conference committee and disappeared. Apparently someone is opposed to 
the Federal Government making up the difference in pay for activated 
Guard and Reserve soldiers. The same Government that is praising 
businesses for doing this is deep-sixing this provision when it comes 
time to consider it in the conference committees.
  I have just been handed a letter from the Reserve Officers 
Association of the United States. I am happy to report it to my 
colleagues in the Senate.

       The Reserve Officers Association, representing 75,000 
     Reserve component members, supports your amendment to the 
     emergency supplemental appropriation to provide an income 
     offset for mobilized Federal employees.

  I might add that it goes on to quote an Army Times article dated 
March 7, 2005, entitled ``Compensating for lost pay a bad idea, reserve 
head says.'' It inferred in this article that a Reserve pay 
differential would be unfair to Active-Duty troops.
  This retired Major General Mcintosh goes on to say:

       It is a shame that it is considered OK for Reservists to 
     accept year-after-year pay losses during mobilization on top 
     of the losses from missed promotions, missed contributions to 
     a retirement account, missed incremental pay increases with 
     their civilian job.
       Helping to maintain the financial health of our military 
     positively affects everyone by ensuring a strong economic 
     position for the country.

  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                      Reserve Officers Association


                                         of the United States,

                                   Washington, DC, April 12, 2005.

     Hon. Richard J. Durbin,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington DC.
       Dear Senator Durbin: The Reserve Officers Association, 
     representing 75,000 Reserve Component members, supports your 
     amendment to the emergency supplemental appropriation, SR 
     109-052, to provide an income offset for mobilized federal 
     employees.
       The Guard and Reserve face financial challenges whenever 
     they are mobilized and ROA continues to hear stories of lost 
     businesses, increasing credit card debt, and families forced 
     to sell their homes. Many employees pay the difference 
     between the civilian and military salary for mobilized 
     Reservists; yet one of the largest employers, the federal 
     government, does not.
       In the Army Times Article, ``Compensating for lost pay a 
     bad idea, reserve head says'', dated March 7, 2005, it was 
     inferred a reserve pay differential would be unfair to 
     active-duty troops. It is a shame that it is considered okay 
     for Reservists to accept year-after-year of pay losses during 
     mobilization on top of the losses from missed promotions, 
     missed contributions to a retirement account, missed 
     incremental pay increases with their civilian job.
       Helping to maintain the financial health of our military, 
     positively affects everyone by ensuring a strong economic 
     position for the country. Congressional support for our 
     nation's military men and women in the Guard and Reserve is 
     and always will be appreciated.
           Sincerely,

                                           Robert A. McIntosh,

                                       Major General (Ret), USAFR,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. DURBIN. Thank you very much, Mr. President. These folks who 
passed this amendment twice recognized reality.
  Since the end of the Cold War, employment of our Reserve Forces has 
shifted profoundly from being primarily an expansion force to augment 
Active Forces during major war to the situation we face today where the 
Department of Defense acknowledges that no significant operation can be 
undertaken without the Guard and Reserve. Today, more than 40 percent 
of the forces fighting the global war on terrorism are members of our 
Guard and Reserve. Our part-time warriors have become full-time 
protectors of freedom.
  The Federal Government is the Nation's largest employer. We must set 
an example. We must show the initiative. We must stand behind the men 
and women of the Federal workforce who are risking their lives for us 
overseas. Similar legislation has been enacted in at least 23 other 
States.
  The Presiding Officer and I had a rare opportunity not long ago. We 
flew into Baghdad 2 or 3 weeks ago. It was a harrowing trip in the back 
of a C-130. We were strapped into our combat armor, body armor, with 
helmets on our head, in the C-130 as it made a corkscrew landing into 
Baghdad. We shared a wonderful, unforgettable opportunity to meet not 
only the leadership in the Green Zone but to meet with the marines and 
soldiers who are there risking their lives.
  I sat down across the table from those three marines, recalled the 
guard unit I met the night before, and I thought to myself, we owe them 
something, not simply thanks but something significant and something 
tangible.
  For those who work in the Federal workforce, this is something 
tangible we can do. We can make up the difference in lost pay. We can 
say to them, worry about coming home safely, but don't worry about 
whether your family is going to make the mortgage payment and pay the 
utility bills and keep things together while you are overseas.
  That is what this amendment is all about. We express our gratitude in 
many different ways for the men and women in uniform, but this 
amendment which I have offered with Senator Mikulski, Senator Allen, 
and Senator Corzine, says to my colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, let 
us offer to these men and women in uniform not only our thanks and our 
praise but the financial support they need to give them peace of mind.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the pending Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami 
Relief for 2005, H.R. 1268, as reported by the Senate Committee on 
Appropriations, provides a net $80.582 billion in budget authority and 
$32.790 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2005. Of this amount, $74.763 
billion is for defense activities, and the balance of $5.819 billion is 
for nondefense activities.
  This bill is $1.299 billion less than the President's request in 
budget authority, but is $0.699 billion more in outlays. Compared to 
the House-passed bill, the Senate-reported version is $0.759 billion 
less in budget authority, but is $0.608 billion more in outlays.
  Nearly every individual appropriation item in the bill is designated 
as an emergency. In total, the bill designates $81.592 billion in 
budget authority as an emergency, the outlays flowing from that budget 
authority also have the emergency designation; in fiscal year 2005, the 
associated outlays are estimated to be $32.790 billion. The bill 
includes rescission totaling $1.010 billion in budget authority only.
  For the information of my colleagues, I would like to briefly 
summarize where the Senate stands in relation to budgetary enforcement 
of appropriation bills in 2005. Although the conference report on the 
2005 budget resolution was not adopted by both the House and Senate, 
enactment of the 2005 Defense Appropriations bill, P.L. 108-287, 
section 14007, did give effect to some of the provisions in that 
resolution, including a 302(a) allocation to

[[Page S3473]]

the Appropriations Committee and sections 402 and 403 of the 2005 
budget resolution relating to emergency legislation and overseas 
contingency operations.
  First, any appropriation for 2005 that is not designated as an 
emergency or as an overseas contingency would be subject to a 302(f) 
point of order because appropriations enacted to date have already 
exceeded the allocation provided for 2005.
  Second, of the total amount designated as an emergency in H.R. 1268, 
$74.763 billion in budget authority is designated as an emergency for 
defense activities, which is exempt from the emergency designation 
point of order. Section 403 of the 2005 budget resolution provided that 
$50 billion was assumed in the resolution for 2005 appropriations for 
overseas contingency operations, which would not even require an 
emergency designation. The same law that gave effect to sections 402 
and 403 of the 2005 budget resolution also provided $25 billion for 
overseas contingency operations that were designated an emergency, but 
the funds were provided in 2004. One way to think about the $74.763 
billion in emergency defense funds provided in this bill is that it 
exceeds by almost $25 billion in the amount contemplated for overseas 
contingency operations for fiscal year 2005 in the 2005 budget 
resolution.
  Third, the remaining amount that is designated as an emergency in 
H.R. 1268--$6.829 billion--is all for nondefense activities. As a 
result, any member of the Senate may use the emergency designation 
point of order under section 402 of the 2005 budget resolution to 
question, or strike, the emergency designation attached to each 
individual nondefense appropriation item in the bill or an amendment 
thereto. Such a point of order can be waived with 60 votes. If the 
point of order is not waived, the designation would be struck from the 
bill or amendment, leaving only the appropriation, which, absent its 
emergency designation, which would have prevented the item from 
``counting'' for budget enforcement purposes, would then count against 
the committee's allocation, meaning a 302(f) point of order would lie 
against the bill or amendment.
  May I also point out to my colleagues that the emergency designation 
point of order requires that if ``a provision of legislation is 
designated as an emergency requirement . . . the committee report and 
any joint explanatory statement of managers accompanying that 
legislation shall include an explanation of the manner in which the 
provision meets the criteria,'' which are defined as follows: ``Any 
such provision is an emergency requirement if the underlying situation 
poses a threat to life, property, or national security and is--(I) 
sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building up over time; (II) 
an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring immediate action; 
(III) . . . unforeseen, unpredictable, and unanticipated; and (IV) not 
permanent, temporary in nature'' with the proviso that an ``emergency 
that is part of an aggregate level of anticipated emergencies, 
particularly when normally estimated in advance, is not unforeseen.'' I 
note that the committee report does not include any discussion of how 
each individual item in this bill that is designated as an emergency 
meets all of these criteria.
  This supplemental appropriations bill has been requested by the 
President, and the Congress has responded. It will be conferenced 
quickly and signed by the President. I know the temptation is strong, 
almost irresistible, for my colleagues to attempt to amend the bill 
with extraneous items that may be quite important--but this is not the 
place for them. I will strongly object to making this supplemental 
appropriations bill ``Christmas in April'' for various nondefense 
discretionary items and for new or expanded mandatory spending.
  I commend the distinguished Chairman of the Appropriations Committee 
for bringing this legislation before the Senate, and I ask unanimous 
consent that a table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the 
bill with comparisons to the House-passed bill and the President's 
request be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  H.R. 1268, 2005 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL--SPENDING COMPARISONS--SENATE-
                              REPORTED BILL
               [Fiscal year 2005, in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Defense
                                      (050)     Non-Defense     Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
    Budget authority.............       74,763        5,819       80,582
    Outlays......................       31,605        1,185       32,790
House-passed:
    Budget authority.............       77,175        4,166       81,341
    Outlays......................       31,497          685       32,182
President's request:
    Budget authority.............       75,315        6,566       81,881
    Outlays......................       31,219          902       32,121
Senate-reported bill compared to:
    House-passed:
        Budget authority.........       -2,412        1,654         -759
        Outlays..................          108          500          608
    President's request:
        Budget authority.........         -552         -747       -1,299
        Outlays..................          386          283          669
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted
  for consistency with scorekeeping conventions.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________