Congressional Record, Volume 151 Issue 42 (Tuesday, April 12, 2005)

[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

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.

____________________