[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 49 (Thursday, April 21, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4086-S4094]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


 Amendments Nos. 389, 421, As Modified; No. 484, As Modified; No. 502, 
                 As Modified; No. 565, And 566, En Bloc

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, last evening, as we were finishing up 
this bill, we had a series of amendments that were offered as 
amendments, and we were in the process of changing them to sense-of-
the-Senate resolutions. There are a couple others we failed to offer, 
approved by both sides. I ask unanimous consent they now be offered en 
bloc and have them considered en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent the amendments be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           amendment no. 389

   (Purpose: To reaffirm the authority of States to regulate certain 
                    hunting and fishing activities)

       On page 231, after line 6, add the following:

     SEC. 6047. STATE REGULATION OF RESIDENT AND NONRESIDENT 
                   HUNTING AND FISHING.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Reaffirmation of State Regulation of Resident and 
     Nonresident Hunting and Fishing Act of 2005''.
       (b) Declaration of Policy and Construction of Congressional 
     Silence.--
       (1) In general.--It is the policy of Congress that it is in 
     the public interest for each State to continue to regulate 
     the taking for any purpose of fish and wildlife within its 
     boundaries, including by means of laws or regulations that 
     differentiate between residents and nonresidents of such 
     State with respect to the availability of licenses or permits 
     for taking of particular species of fish or wildlife, the 
     kind and numbers of fish and wildlife that may be taken, or 
     the fees charged in connection with issuance of licenses or 
     permits for hunting or fishing.
       (2) Construction of congressional silence.--Silence on the 
     part of Congress shall not be construed to impose any barrier 
     under clause 3 of Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution 
     (commonly referred to as the ``commerce clause'') to the 
     regulation of hunting or fishing by a State or Indian tribe.
       (c) Limitations.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed--
       (1) to limit the applicability or effect of any Federal law 
     related to the protection or management of fish or wildlife 
     or to the regulation of commerce;
       (2) to limit the authority of the United States to prohibit 
     hunting or fishing on any portion of the lands owned by the 
     United States; or
       (3) to abrogate, abridge, affect, modify, supersede or 
     alter any treaty-reserved right or other right of any Indian 
     tribe as recognized by any other means, including, but not 
     limited to, agreements with the United States, Executive 
     Orders, statutes, and judicial decrees, and by Federal law.
       (d) State Defined.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``State'' includes the several States, the District of 
     Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin 
     Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern 
     Mariana Islands.


                     amendment no. 421, as modified

    (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on funding for the 
         continuing development of the permanent magnet motor)

       On page 169, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

[[Page S4087]]

                         permanent magnet motor

       Sec. 1122. It is the sense of the Senate that of the 
     amounts appropriated by this Act under the heading 
     ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy'', 
     $15,000,000 should be made available for the continuing 
     development of the permanent magnet motor.


                     amendment no. 484, as modified

    (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on funding for the 
       procurement of man-portable air defense (MANPAD) systems)

       On page 169, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:


   sense of senate on procurement of man-portable air defense systems

       Sec. 1122. It is the sense of the Senate that, of the 
     amounts appropriated by this Act, $32,000,000 may be 
     available to procure MANPAD systems.


                     amendment no. 502, as modified

    (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on funding for the 
replenishment of medical supply needs within the combat theaters of the 
                                 Army)

       On page 169, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:


         sense of senate on medical support for tactical units

       Sec. 1122. It is the sense of the Senate that, of the 
     amount appropriated by this Act under the heading ``Operation 
     and Maintenance, Army'', $11,500,000 should be made available 
     for the replenishment of medical supply and equipment needs 
     within the combat theaters of the Army, including bandages 
     and other blood-clotting supplies that utilize hemostatic, 
     wound-dressing technologies.


                           amendment no. 565

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that Congress should enact 
an increase in the period of continued TRICARE coverage of children of 
members of the uniformed services who die while serving on active duty 
   for a period of more than 30 days and make such increased period 
applicable to children of members who have died since the commencement 
                 of military operations in Afghanistan)

       On page 169, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:


 sense of senate on increased period of continued tricare coverage of 
children of members of the uniformed services who die while serving on 
             active duty for a period of more than 30 days

       Sec. 1122. It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) Congress should enact an amendment to section 1079 of 
     title 10, United States Code, in order to increase the period 
     of continued TRICARE coverage of children of members of the 
     uniformed services who die while serving on active duty for a 
     period of more than 30 days under that section such that the 
     period of continued eligibility is the longer of--
       (A) the three-year period beginning on the date of death of 
     the member;
       (B) the period ending on the date on which the child 
     attains 21 years of age; or
       (C) in the case of a child of a deceased member who, at 21 
     years of age, is enrolled in a full-time course of study in a 
     secondary school or in a full-time course of study in an 
     institution of higher education approved by the administering 
     Secretary and was, at the time of the member's death, in fact 
     dependent on the member for over one-half of the child's 
     support, the period ending on the earlier--
       (i) the date on which the child ceases to pursue such a 
     course of study, as determined by the administering 
     Secretary; or
       (ii) the date on which the child attains 23 years of age; 
     and
       (2) Congress should make the amendment applicable to deaths 
     of members of the Armed Forces on or after October 7, 2001, 
     the date of the commencement of military operations in 
     Afghanistan.


                           amendment no. 566

 (Purpose: To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for 
                    entry of nationals of Australia)

       On page 231, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following 
     new section:


              RECIPROCAL VISAS FOR NATIONALS OF AUSTRALIA

       Sec. 6047. (a) Section 101(a)(15)(E) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(E)) is amended--
       (1) by adding at the end ``or (iii) solely to perform 
     services in a specialty occupation in the United States if 
     the alien is a national of the Commonwealth of Australia and 
     with respect to whom the Secretary of Labor determines and 
     certifies to the Secretary of Homeland Security and the 
     Secretary of State that the intending employer has filed with 
     the Secretary of Labor an attestation under section 
     212(t)(1);''; and
       (2) in clause (i), by striking ``or'' after ``national;''.
       (b) Section 202 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1152) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Special Rule for Australia.--The total number of 
     aliens who may acquire nonimmigrant status under section 
     101(a)(15)(E)(iii) may not exceed 5000 for a fiscal year.''.
       (c) Section 214(i)(1) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(i)(1)) is 
     amended by inserting ``, section 101(a)(15)(E)(iii),'' after 
     ``section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)''.
       (d) Section 212(t) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(t)), as added 
     by section 402(b)(2) of the United States-Chile Free Trade 
     Agreement Implementation Act (Public Law 108-77; 117 Stat. 
     941), is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``or section 101(a)(15)(E)(iii)'' after 
     ``section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b1)'' each place it appears;
       (2) in paragraph (3)(C)(i)(II), by striking ``or'' in the 
     third place it appears;
       (3) in paragraph (3)(C)(ii)(II), by striking ``or'' in the 
     third place it appears; and
       (4) in paragraph (3)(C)(iii)(II), by striking ``or'' in the 
     third place it appears.

  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 487, As Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment 
No. 487 be modified so as to appear on page 187 after line 18. This 
request only changes the placement of the amendment in the bill. It 
does not change the text of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 187, after line 18, insert the following:

                     CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'', for 
     hiring border patrol agents, $105,451,000: Provided, That the 
     amount provided under this heading is designated as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of the 
     conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 (108th 
     Congress).

                              Construction

       For an additional amount for ``Construction'', $41,500,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That the amount 
     provided under this heading is designated as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 402 of the conference report 
     to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress).

                          Reduction in Funding

       The amount appropriated by title II for ``Contributions to 
     International Peacekeeping Activities'' is hereby reduced by 
     $146,951,000 and the total amount appropriated by title II is 
     hereby reduced by $146,951,000.


           Avian Flu and the Emergency Supplemental for Iraq

  Mr. OBAMA. I see that the distinguished ranking member of the State 
and Foreign Operations Subcommittee, Senator Leahy is here on the 
Senate floor. I am wondering it he would take just a moment to discuss 
with me the critical issue of the avian flu.
  Mr. President, an outbreak of the avian flu would be an international 
calamity. In this age when you can get on a plane in Bangkok and arrive 
in Chicago or Burlington in hours, we must face the reality that this 
threat is not a problem isolated half a world away, but is one that 
could affect people in Illinois, Vermont, and all across America. The 
director of the Centers for Disease Control recognized the grave 
consequences this virus could pose to international health when she 
recently stated that ``this is a very ominous situation for the globe . 
. . [this is] the most important threat we are facing right now.'' It 
is something that is clearly an emergency and is appropriately 
addressed in the Iraq Supplemental.
  At this point, humans contract the virus overwhelmingly by coming 
into contact with infected animals, and once contracted, the virus is 
extremely deadly--a 65 to 75 percent mortality rate for humans--
especially because there is no proven vaccine for the H5N1 strain. 
Further, effective treatments for this strain of the virus are not 
widely available and must be delivered within 24 hours.
  The recent trends with respect to the spread of the avian flu are 
very alarming. Over the last few months, there is growing evidence 
which suggests that the virus may be mutating and could eventually 
result in a form that is transmittable from human to human. If this 
were to occur, it could cause the deaths of millions of people, 
seriously damage economic activity in Southeast Asia, and cause panic 
and instability throughout the region. Moreover, because of the dynamic 
nature of Southeast Asia, with all sorts of commerce and transport in 
and out of the region, the virus would likely spread around the world--
including to the United States, in a matter of hours or days.
  I would ask my good friend, the senior Senator from Vermont, who has 
a

[[Page S4088]]

long history of leadership on international health issues. for his 
assessment of what needs to be done.
  Mr. LEAHY. I would say to the Senator from Illinois that, earlier 
this year, the World Health Organization convened a conference on this 
issue. The WHO concluded that the international community does not 
possess sufficient plans and resources to effectively respond to an 
outbreak of the avian flu and that additional resources and attention 
to this issue are urgently needed. The WHO called for $100 million in 
new resources from the international community to prevent, and if 
necessary, respond to an outbreak of the avian flu.

  Mr. OBAMA. Just for the record, the $100 million figure is important 
for our purposes here today. Before the Appropriations Committee put 
together the supplemental, we discussed the importance of immediately 
addressing the avian flu before the situation spirals out of control, 
and that $25 million is an appropriate amount to deal with this 
critical emergency. I am correct?
  Mr. LEAHY. Yes, the Senator is correct. When the Appropriations 
Committee was putting together the Supplemental, the Majority and 
Minority, working together, included $25 million to prevent and respond 
to an outbreak of the avian flu, because of the urgent nature of the 
situation in southeast Asia.
  I would also add that $25 million is one-fourth of the WHO appeal, 
and as we know, the traditional U.S. share of such multilateral efforts 
is one-fourth of the total cost. I would also point out that this is 
the amount that has been authorized in S. 600, the Foreign Assistance 
Authorization bill that was debated in the Senate last week.
  Mr. OBAMA. I also know that USAID has already formulated a rapid 
response plan to use this $25 million, if it is ultimately 
appropriated.
  Mr. LEAHY. That is correct. The administration urgently needs this 
money and it will be well spent if appropriated. In fact, the money 
will be used to address the avian flu and build lasting mechanisms and 
networks to address other viruses that will undoubtedly arise in 
southeast Asia. The $25 million to combat the avian flu is important 
for Southeast Asia and the United States.


            ENSURING THE MILITARY DEATH BENEFIT IS TAX FREE

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to speak on my amendment No. 497 
to ensure that increased military death benefits are tax free.
  We know that more than 1,700 servicemen and women have made the 
ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan. We don't always focus on 
the families that have to live their lives without a husband or wife, 
without a son or daughter, without a father or mother, without a 
brother or sister.
  Already in March, Newsweek estimated that 1,043 American children had 
lost a parent in Iraq. The stories of these children trying to cope 
with the reality that a parent isn't coming home will break your heart. 
But the families of those who die for their country also have to 
struggle with more mundane challenges, like the loss of the main 
breadwinner.
  Staff Sargeant Kendell Waters-Bey was a 29-year-old Marine from 
Baltimore. He was one of the first American servicemembers to die in 
Iraq, among 12 people killed in a helicopter crash.
  Michael and Angela Waters-Bey lost their only son; that's hard 
enough. But 10-year-old Kenneth lost his father. My Maryland colleague 
in the House, Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger, helped to set up a trust 
fund to pay for Kenneth's college education.
  Another Marylander, Naval Reserve Lieutenant Kylan Jones-Huffman, was 
killed by small arms fire in Iraq. Lieutenant Jones-Huffman was a 
graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, and he returned there 
to teach history before being deployed to Iraq.
  These are just two of the many families in Maryland and across the 
Nation that experience the sacrifices of this war every day. They 
deserve our gratitude--not just words, but deeds.
  I'm proud to be a member of the Appropriations Committee. We did what 
is right to support our troops by reporting out a strong emergency 
supplemental bill to meet the needs of our men and women in uniform in 
Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world. We did what is right by 
increasing the military death benefit immediately paid to the family of 
a member of our military who is killed.
  This bill will raise the military death benefit from just over 
$12,000 to $100,000.
  The supplemental bill also provides a benefit to make the increase 
retroactive to October 7, 2001, the start of the war in Afghanistan 
after the September 11 attacks.
  The Senate has also rightly adopted the Kerry amendment to ensure 
that the death benefit increase covers all soldiers, sailors, airmen 
and marines who die on active duty.
  I also appreciate the Senate's adoption of the Salazar amendment, to 
me the so-called death gratuity as fallen heroes compensation. While we 
understand that no compensation can make up for the loss of a family 
member, the new name adopted by the Senate recognizes that we are 
helping the families of our fallen heroes.
  I believe just about every Senator shares my view that the military 
death benefit should not be taxed.
  We need to make sure that the full amount is paid to the family of a 
service member who dies for our country. We are a grateful Nation, and 
this is one of the ways we express our gratitude.
  Under our tax law, the death benefit is excluded from gross income. 
That means families don't have to pay income tax on it. We don't want 
the family of a hero who died for our country to be handed the American 
flag from the casket in one hand, and get a bill from the IRS in the 
other.
  My amendment will make sure that the payments to make the death 
benefit increase retroactive are not taxed.
  I appreciate the support of the National Military Family Association 
for my amendment.
  I also appreciate the support of the Senator from New Jersey, Senator 
Corzine, who is a cosponsor of this amendment.
  I hope that the Senate will send a strong message that we intend the 
military death benefit to be tax-free.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I want to thank my friend, Senator Mikulski, for her 
work on this issue. You have called attention to a solemn and 
critically important issue, and I commend you and join with you in your 
commitment to ensure that we provide a real and meaningful death 
gratuity to the families of our brave young men and women who have paid 
the ultimate sacrifice. And I also share your commitment to ensure that 
those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice are not forced to pay 
again--to the IRS, in the form of taxation of these gratuity payments.
  Unfortunately, addressing the tax treatment of these payments on this 
bill could raise procedural hurdles to getting this bill signed into 
law as quickly as possible. But as Chairman of the Finance Committee, I 
pledge to work with you, Senator Baucus in his role as ranking member, 
and the rest of the Finance Committee and Congress to ensure that these 
gratuity payments will not be subject to Federal tax and to enact any 
necessary changes at the earliest possible date on the first available 
vehicle. I look forward to working with the gentlelady to resolve this 
issue expeditiously.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to support the efforts of my friend 
and colleague Senator Mikulski to protect payments to the families of 
our brave Americans serving and dying for this country. There are 
currently 1,254 Montanans deployed overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan 
with one-third of those deployed coming from our guard and reserve 
forces. We have lost seven service members since the war on terrorism 
began and with each sacrifice I am made more aware of the strength and 
commitment of our military families.

  Senator Mikulski has wisely offered an amendment to ensure that the 
additional death gratuity benefits would not be subject to taxes, just 
as other death gratuity benefits for military families are tax-free. It 
is certainly my hope that such an amendment is not needed. However, I 
have promised to work with Senator Mikulski and my good friend, 
Chairman Grassley, to clarify that this is the case, should there be 
any question in the future about the tax-free status of these payments. 
Certainly, for these families who have already given so much to this 
country, it is the right thing to do.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I would like to thank the chairman of

[[Page S4089]]

the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, and the ranking member, 
Senator Baucus, for their support of ensuring that death benefits paid 
to the families of those who give their lives for our country are tax-
free. I appreciate their commitment to getting this done through 
appropriate tax legislation, if necessary, as soon as possible. And I 
appreciate the help of their staff on the Finance Committee, who worked 
with my staff on this issue.
  Given these commitments from Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus, I 
will not proceed with my amendment on this critical supplemental 
appropriations bill to meet the needs of our troops.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the Supplemental Appropriations bill 
includes a provision, Section 6023, which allows the Department of 
Energy to count subcontracts towards their small business prime 
contracting goal and caps the total agency small business goal at 23 
percent.
  Section 6023 amends the Small Business Act, which falls under the 
jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Small Business and 
Entrepreneurship but neither Senator Snowe, the chairwoman of the 
committee, nor I, the ranking member, were consulted about this 
language prior to its introduction.
  The Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship has a 
longstanding position opposing the counting of subcontracts towards 
small business prime contracting goals at the Department of Energy. And 
for good reason, doing it this way is faking. It's saying that you are 
awarding prime Federal contracts to small business when you really 
aren't.
  This language will essentially cut small businesses out of contracts 
at the Department of Energy across the Nation by removing all 
incentives for the agency to create prime contracting opportunities for 
these firms. This provision would reduce the amount of contracts 
available for small firms, shrinking their revenue stream, reducing 
jobs and hurting the economy. Also, by reducing competition in the 
marketplace this language would prevent the Federal Government from 
benefiting from the billions of dollars in savings that come from that 
competition.
  Even more problematic is the precedent this would set for government 
contracts. It would open the door for any agency with management and 
operations contractors, facilities managers, or systems integrators to 
seek an exemption from Federal acquisition law with regard to prime 
contract awards to small firms.
  Mr. President, I recognize the concern that Senator Domenici has for 
his firms in New Mexico and for the two DOE laboratories located in his 
State. The loss of contracts by local businesses is a concern that 
Senator Snowe and I would be happy to address with Senators Domenici 
and Bingaman. However, this language does nothing to guarantee that 
contracts stay local; instead it simply shifts the authority to award 
Government prime contracts away from a Federal agency and gives that 
authority to private, for-profit corporate entities. The availability 
of prime and subcontracting opportunities for small firms at the DOE is 
a complicated issue that needs a thorough investigation and analysis 
before adopting legislation that could irreparably harm small 
businesses throughout the Nation. An emergency supplemental bill is not 
the place for this language.
  Finally, I have received a draft copy of the GAO report requested by 
Senators Domenici, Bingaman, Snowe and myself on this very subject--DOE 
small business contracting. The draft report has a number of disturbing 
findings including: the complete lack of oversight in M&O 
subcontracting by the Department of Energy, falsified reporting data, 
and the mismanagement of subcontracts by large prime contractors. Given 
the serious nature of the problems with these M&O contractors, it is 
highly inappropriate for the Congress to now exempt the Agency from its 
oversight duties and hand over all control to these companies.
  I have worked diligently with Senators Snowe, Bingaman, and Domenici 
to find compromise language that would address Senator Domenici's 
concerns without causing irreparable damage to the small business 
community. Unfortunately, we ran out of time before this bill was 
adopted. However, I hope that we can continue to work on finding a real 
solution and correct this harmful provision in the conference to ensure 
that small businesses receive their fair share of DOE contracts. I 
believe we can do that without adversely affecting the agency's ability 
to successfully permit its core duties.
  Mr. President, the emergency supplemental appropriations bill before 
the Senate is a vitally important piece of legislation. It provides $81 
billion in immediate funds for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, 
and to meet critical needs for other important national priorities, 
including tsunami relief.
  The war in Iraq has been a divisive issue in our country. People have 
passionate views on the subject--a passion that is matched by our 
concern for the welfare of the men and women of the American military. 
It is that concern and a real desire for them to succeed that has 
driven us all to push the administration toward adopting a better 
approach to the mission in Iraq.
  In recent months, President Bush has made progress in drawing 
additional international support to the training of Iraqi security 
forces. We can wonder what took so long and hope that their efforts in 
recent months were just the beginning, but we all recognize that the 
Iraqi election was an important milestone and success--a success made 
possible by the courage of the Iraqi people and the dedication of the 
men and women of the American military.
  But the mission there is not complete. Even this week Iraq has been 
struck by deadly violence against innocent civilians. And the nascent 
government, even after the first election, can only be described as 
fragile. The Iraqi people are in the midst of an experiment with 
democracy--an experiment that must succeed. This supplemental bill will 
give them the tools and resources they need to succeed.
  The legislation also provides critical funds for the mission in 
Afghanistan. The war against al-Qaida and international terrorism is 
not yet won, and our forces need these funds to continue the fight, to 
support the emergence of a free Afghanistan, and to bring Osama bin 
Laden to justice.
  Last week, the Senate adopted two amendments I offered to improve 
benefits for surviving military families. One amendment extends the 
length of time surviving families may stay in military housing free of 
charge to one year. Military families suffer in unique ways when a 
loved one is lost in the line of duty. In the midst of grieving they 
must almost immediately plan to move and change their entire life. For 
those with children in school, the loss is compounded by the disruption 
in school and friends that moving in the midst of the school year may 
bring. The amendment the Senate accepted last week gives surviving 
military families the opportunity to get their affairs in order, to 
finish the school year, and to better cope with the loss of a loved one 
before having to move. I thank my colleagues for their support in this 
effort.
  The second amendment I offered increases to $100,000 the death 
gratuity paid to survivors of service members who die on active duty. 
The current law provides a miserly sum of $12,400. I began talking 
about the need to increase the death gratuity more than a year ago. 
When the administration announced its proposal earlier this year, it 
sought to limit the increase to those who died in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
No one thought that was a good idea, including the uniformed leadership 
of the United States military. The Senate Appropriations Committee 
addressed part of the problem in its mark of this bill, but avoided the 
simple solution of changing U.S. Code to read ``$100,000'' instead of 
the current $12,000. My amendment did just that. And I thank my 
colleagues for their overwhelming support of it.
  Our missions in Iraq and Afghanistan are not yet done. Until they 
are, the administration must continue to build international support 
for our efforts and ensure that the men and women of the American 
military have everything they need to succeed and that their families 
have the support they need and deserve.
  The Congress has an important responsibility to pass this legislation 
swiftly. Any effort to unnecessarily burden this legislation with 
immigration provisions in conference will unnecessarily delay the 
passage of this

[[Page S4090]]

vital legislation to the detriment of the men and women in the field 
today. I strongly urge the conferees to reject any effort to attach the 
REAL ID Act to this legislation. Let's pass a clean bill that provides 
our forces with the tools they need and the resources they need to 
succeed.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I support our troops and their families. 
I am behind them 100 percent. They deserve our gratitude, not just with 
words but with deeds. We must do right by our troops and their 
families. This strong emergency supplemental appropriations bill helps 
us do just that.
  In this bill we have provided $5.4 billion to fix or replace 
equipment that has been damaged during combat operations. We have also 
added $3.3 billion to add armor to all convoy trucks, buy more armored 
vehicles and provide helicopter survivability systems.
  To help protect our troops from deadly improvised explosive devices, 
IEDs, I supported the addition of $60 million for the Army to purchase 
field jamming systems $213 million for the Army to purchase Up-Armored 
Humvees. We have preserved support for C130J aircraft, so vital to 
transporting troops and materiel around the world.
  To ensure that we do all we can to care for soldiers when they are 
injured, this bill includes an additional $275 million for the Defense 
Health program. It also eliminates a petty charge to some service 
members recuperating from combat injuries in military facilities who 
are being asked to pay for their own meals.
  More than 1,700 servicemen and -women have made the ultimate 
sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan. Part of the debt of gratitude we owe 
the families they leave behind is to ensure that they do not have to 
face a financial crisis at the same time that they are dealing with the 
loss of a loved one.
  To help alleviate their burden, we have increased from $12,000 to 
$100,000 the Fallen Heroes compensation for family members of those 
brave troops who make the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of our country. 
We have applied this increase retroactively, to include all those who 
have died since the beginning of operations in Afghanistan, and we have 
extended this compensation to apply to every service member who dies 
while on active duty, not just in a designated combat zone.
  We also need to make sure that families receive the full amount of 
this compensation. Working closely with Senator Grassley, I have taken 
steps to ensure that the full benefit is tax free. Senator Grassley has 
assured me that this important correction will be added to the next tax 
bill considered in the Senate.
  To further ease the strain for these families, we have allowed the 
family of a service member who dies to remain in military housing for a 
year, rather than the 6 months currently allowed.
  The veterans' health care system is stretched to the limit at a time 
when more and more veterans are turning to VA. That's why I supported 
an amendment by Senator Murray to increase veterans funding by $2 
billion to meet the health care needs of soldiers returning from Iraq 
and Afghanistan and other war veterans. Although this amendment was 
defeated, I will continue to fight for adequate funding for veterans' 
health care, because the VA will continue to see more enrollment of 
veterans and a higher demand for care.
  We know that nearly 40 percent of the soldiers deployed today in Iraq 
and Afghanistan are citizen soldiers who come from the National Guard 
and Reserves. More than half of these will suffer a loss of income when 
they are mobilized, because their military pay is less than the pay 
from their civilian job.
  Many patriotic employers and state governments eliminate this pay gap 
by continuing to pay them the difference between their civilian and 
military pay. The Reservist Pay Security amendment, which I worked on 
with Senator Durbin, will ensure that the U.S. Government also makes up 
for this pay gap for Federal employees who are activated in the Guard 
and Reserves.
  Americans joined the world in mourning the loss of more than 150,000 
victims of the Indian Ocean Tsunami last Christmas. Together, we prayed 
for the 7 million displaced survivors that God may give them the 
strength to persevere and overcome this, the largest natural disaster 
of our time.
  But expressions of sympathy are not enough. As I said at the time of 
this terrible disaster, the United States must set the example and lead 
the world in the humanitarian effort of recovery and rebuilding.
  So I am especially proud that this bill includes $907 million to help 
keep America's promise to tsunami victims. It provides $656 million for 
the Tsunami Recovery and Reconstruction fund to support on-going and 
long-term relief efforts. It also provides $25 million for U.S. tsunami 
warning programs to help prevent future human disasters on the scale we 
have seen in Asia.
  Because it is just as important to support our communities at home as 
it is to support our troops in the field, I will continue to fight for 
responsible military budgets. For that reason, I joined Senator Byrd's 
call for the President to fund our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan 
through the regular budget and appropriations process. After 3 years in 
Afghanistan and 2 years in Iraq, we should not be funding these 
operations as if they were surprise emergencies.
  I also joined Senator Byrd in his call for the President to provide 
Congress information on the costs so far of these operations and for an 
estimate of what we can expect them to cost in coming years.
  This bill is a Federal investment in supporting our troops and their 
families.
  We support out troops by getting them the best equipment and the best 
protection we can provide. We support them by making it easier for our 
citizen soldiers in the National Guard and Reserves to serve their 
country. And we support them by ensuring that their families do not 
face a financial crisis at the moment when they are grieving the loss 
of a soldier who has sacrificed everything for our country.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I cast my vote in support of the 
2005 supplemental bill for Iraq, Afghanistan, and tsunami relief. I do 
so despite my strong objections to the administration's policy of 
continuing to fund our military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan 
through emergency supplemental bills, as if the needs of our men and 
women on the ground in these troubled countries comes as some sort of 
surprise. These needs should be addressed in the regular budget request 
so that they can actually be paid for, not placed on the tab of the 
American people so that debt can pile up.
  The American people deserve honesty in budgeting, and they deserve 
straight answers about just how long they should expect the United 
States to continue shouldering this extremely heavy burden in Iraq. 
Some have suggested that calling for straight answers somehow 
undermines the mission at hand. Nothing could be further from the 
truth. A clear vision, clear goals, and clear plans are essential to 
success. I hope the administration will articulate them soon.
  But this tremendously irresponsible budgeting and dangerously vague 
overall strategy do not change the fact that our troops on the ground 
need timely support, and I will cast my vote to see that they get it. I 
was in Afghanistan and Iraq less than two months ago, and I was 
inspired by the commitment and professionalism of the service men and 
women I met there.
  I was pleased the Senate adopted my amendment that would correct a 
flaw in current law that unintentionally but severely restricts the 
number of families of injured service members that qualify for travel 
assistance. Too many families are being denied help in visiting their 
injured loved ones because the Army has not officially listed them as 
``seriously injured,'' even though these men and women have been 
evacuated out of the combat zone to the United States for treatment. My 
amendment will provide at least one trip for families of injured 
service members evacuated to a U.S. hospital so that these families can 
quickly reunite and begin recovering from the trauma they've 
experienced.
  I want to make plain that I also believe that our diplomats on the 
ground in tough situations deserve our support and certainly deserve 
the resources they need to provide for their own security. Any 
suggestion that we can pursue our political strategy on the cheap while 
leaving the military alone responsible for the success or failure of

[[Page S4091]]

the U.S. intervention in Iraq is foolish. But I did vote to reduce some 
of the funds for the State Department provided in this bill, including 
funds for the embassy in Iraq--an embassy that will be the most 
expensive U.S. embassy in the world. These expenses simply do not 
belong in an emergency supplemental. They are predictable, they are 
ongoing, and they can be provided through the regular appropriations 
process.
  I regret the managers of the bill did not seize the opportunity to 
extend the mandate of the Special Inspector General for Iraq 
reconstruction in this bill. Transparency and accountability in the 
reconstruction effort is not about finding new things to criticize. It 
is about responsible stewardship of U.S. taxpayer resources, and it is 
about getting reconstruction right. Ultimately, it is about achieving 
our goals in Iraq. We need ongoing, vigorous, focused oversight of the 
reconstruction effort. While I was unable to get my amendment passed, I 
will continue to work to ensure that this need is met.
  Finally, I strongly support the tsunami relief provisions in this 
bill. The scale of this December 2004 tsunami disaster was nearly 
overwhelming, and the human losses were horrifying. I know that most of 
us here in the Congress and most Americans are firm in our resolve to 
be strong, consistent partners to the survivors and the affected 
communities.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, as debate about the supplemental 
appropriations for military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and 
Afghanistan comes to a close, I would like to ensure that our focus 
remains on the welfare of our Nation's troops.
  That is why I would like to speak on behalf of the men and women who 
are serving in our Nation's Armed Forces--those currently on active 
duty as well as in the National Guard and Reserves--who are serving 
today in Iraq, Afghanistan, and across the globe.
  Since the President declared an end to major combat operations in 
Iraq on May 1, 2003, 1,419 American troops have died in Iraq and more 
than 11,000 have been wounded.
  Even if combat in Iraq is something that no longer makes the front 
pages of our newspapers, it is still agonizingly clear that our troops 
remain in danger.
  That is why it is even more important for this body to use sound 
judgment and good planning. One of my major concerns is that year after 
year we have found a way to take the process of funding military 
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan out of our regular budget process.
  I am frustrated, quite frankly, that we have been subjected to this 
biannual ritual. I am frustrated that questioning the timing of these 
requests may cause our political opponents to call us unpatriotic. But, 
most of all, I am frustrated that doing my duty as a U.S. Senator could 
be considered anything less than keeping a sacred trust with our men 
and women in uniform.
  In April of 2003, just a little over 2 years ago, Congress, at the 
President's request, provided approximately $78 billion to meet the 
challenge in Iraq. Six months later, in October of 2003, the 
administration came back to us and requested another $87 billion in the 
form of a supplemental appropriation to fund continuing operations in 
Iraq.
  In early June of 2004, the Senate voted for another $25 billion to 
keep operations going through the end of that year. Now we are faced 
with yet another emergency supplemental request of more than $80 
billion.
  I agree that there is a need to adequately fund our troops. We must 
do everything we can to protect our men and women who are in harms' 
way. What I don't understand, quite frankly, is this President's 
inability or unwillingness to make this request a part of the normal 
budget and appropriation process that we go through every year.
  As you recall, in April of 2003, the President requested $78 billion 
in emergency military funding. We were at the beginning of a war. 
Although it was a war of our choosing, I understood the uncertainty 
that war brings. Furthermore, I understood the value of not allowing 
our enemies to get a read on our intent by peering into our budget 
process over the course of a year. I supported the President's request.
  A mere 6 months later, President Bush returned to this body to 
request another $87 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. At that time, our troops were facing the imminent and 
ever-present danger of guerilla attacks.
  Also, many of our troops were expressing concerns that they were not 
adequately trained for the specialized demands of peacekeeping and 
policing that the reconstruction effort required.
  Moreover, the dangers and difficulties that our troops faced went far 
beyond the threat posed by attacks from insurgents and guerillas. I 
grew increasingly concerned about the conditions under which many of 
our troops were being forced to serve in the Middle East.
  I was consistently hearing about shortages of quality food and water. 
I was hearing that our troops were not properly equipped with the tools 
of warfare. I was hearing of parents sending their children bullet-
proof vests because the military could not or would not provide them.
  Although the administration had completely misjudged the nature of 
this conflict, I understood that our troops must not suffer because 
others had let them down. I understood that whatever this 
administration's shortcomings were in terms of planning, our troops' 
safety and well being came first. I supported the President's request.
  Once again, in June of 2004, this administration asked for another 
$25 billion supplemental for the ongoing efforts in Iraq. At that time, 
we were spending money in Iraq at an unexpectedly high rate, the 
promised money from Iraqi oil receipts was becoming an urban legend, 
and we were still dealing with a pervasive insurgency.
  By June of 2004, we knew or should have known that Iraq was going to 
be a part of this Nation's financial responsibility for some time to 
come. But I understood that the situation was still uncertain. We had 
only been in Iraq little more than a year and I was sure that the 
President's 2006 Defense budget proposal would more accurately reflect 
the costs of the war. I understood that we could not drop the ball on 
the welfare of our troops. I supported the President's request.
  Now the President is requesting an additional $80 billion to support 
ongoing military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems as if we 
have been here before. I have to ask myself, when does an ``emergency'' 
supplemental request become sufficiently routine that it should be 
considered as part of our normal budget process?
  Over the last 2 years we have been subjected to this ``emergency'' 
four times. We have had two budgets come to Capitol Hill from this 
administration in that time. Neither of those budgets requested one 
thin dime in support of our troops in Iraq or Afghanistan.
  The present way in which we fund these conflicts is irresponsible and 
unsustainable. This administration, by not properly submitting this 
request through the normal budget and appropriations process, has 
effectively cut off our oversight role.
  We now only have a scant few weeks to consider one of the most 
important pieces of funding legislation we will consider this year. 
Furthermore, as this supplemental becomes more and more routine, we run 
the risk of hiding the true costs of the war from the American people.
  The American people have every right to know, in as clear and 
straightforward a manner as possible, what the financial costs of the 
war are. By excluding those costs from the normal budget process we 
obscure the true effect of this conflict on our national debt, our 
budget and our economy. I believe that the American people deserve more 
transparency from us.
  We are now at the point where poor budget planning is no longer 
acceptable. We can no longer accept the argument that unexpected events 
have changed our outlook therefore we must have a supplemental. We know 
that Iraq is unpredictable. We know that unforseen events occur. Our 
planning must be flexible enough to accommodate this reality.
  We see very clearly the effects of poor planning. We have seen it in 
the way our troops have been inadequately equipped early on in this 
conflict. We have seen it in the way this administration has failed to 
properly budget and has been forced to run to Congress for emergency 
funds every 6 months.
  In spite of the haphazard way that this administration has planned 
for the

[[Page S4092]]

financial aspects of this conflict, this Congress must keep faith with 
our troops and the American people. Part of that is making sure that we 
hold this administration and any future administrations accountable for 
proper planning.
  We must make sure that our troops are properly equipped and provided 
for and we must make sure that the American people have a true sense of 
the economic impact of this war.
  We know that we will continue to have a commitment in Iraq. The level 
of that commitment is no longer a surprise. I expect to see that 
commitment reflected in the next Defense budget that is submitted to 
this Congress for consideration. I do not believe that another 
supplemental request beyond this one would be appropriate except in the 
most extreme circumstances.
  We must make sure that our troops are safe and have the equipment 
they need. But, we must also make sure that the America they return to 
is stronger than the one they left. We must make sure that their 
children will not be burdened with the debt of our irresponsibility. We 
must make sure that we are never accused of shirking our duty to create 
an America with more opportunity, more hope and more prosperity.
  We can only do that when we understand that our insistence on using 
the normal budget process to fund ongoing operations in Iraq is not an 
affront to our men and women in uniform, but rather, it is our way of 
honoring them and the nation that they are fighting to protect.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, as a cosponsor, I rise to discuss the 
DeWine/Bingaman amendment. This important measure would designate $20 
million for critical election assistance, employment and public works 
projects, and police assistance in Haiti. I am pleased that agreement 
has been reached to include this amendment in the managers' package.
  It has been just over a year since President Jean Bertrand Aristide 
was forced into exile. It is well known that the United States played 
an active role in his departure. I do not wish at this time to consider 
just how great that role may have been. But as I have stated before, I 
am troubled that our Government chose to use its influence to remove a 
democratically elected leader--and for all of President Aristide's 
faults, he was that--rather than working to restore stability.
  To its credit, the United Nations Peacekeeping force in Haiti, 
MINUSTAH, has done much to reestablish security following President 
Aristide's departure. I applaud those countries, particularly those 
Latin American countries, which have contributed forces. I am also 
encouraged by the work of the international community in support of the 
Haitian elections scheduled for this fall.
  But without United States leadership, I am afraid that any temporary 
stability will be fleeting. Indeed, the Bush administration and the 
international community had an opportunity to become engaged in Haiti 
well before we reached the current state of affairs. It failed to do 
so. The presence of President Aristide used to be the Bush 
administration's excuse to not properly engage with Haiti. Right or 
wrong, that issue is no longer a factor.
  Leadership here on the part of the Bush administration has been 
woefully lacking. Indeed, if we continue on our present course, long-
term security in Haiti may be critically undermined. Most immediately, 
without increased United States support, the success of Haitian 
elections scheduled for this fall is in jeopardy--elections, which I 
might point out, could do much for the stability and well-being of the 
Haitian people.
  Mr. President, during the past year, Haitians have endured 
unimaginable hardships. Flooding in late May claimed almost 3,000 
lives. Tropical Storm Jeanne killed nearly 2,000--making it the 
deadliest storm this hurricane season. These catastrophes were only 
compounded by a deteriorating security environment. They created a 
vicious cycle where widespread looting and rioting significantly 
impeded disaster relief efforts.
  Sadly, such violence and insecurity persists. The government lacks 
control over substantial portions of the country. Armed gangs continue 
to terrorize the capital of Port-au-Prince. Elements of the former 
military have occupied towns and police stations throughout the 
countryside. Since September alone, around 400 Haitians have been 
killed as violence spiraled out of control after an escalation in pro-
Aristide protests.
  The ongoing disorder is perhaps best symbolized by a February 19 
attack on Haiti's national prison. Approximately a dozen armed men 
assaulted the facility and released 481 prisoners, including drug 
dealers and other suspected criminals. The attack--which appears to 
have been assisted from inside--is indicative of the government's 
inability to fully control even its own security forces.
  If we are going to move toward a more hopeful future for Haiti, then 
we need to renew our support for the Haitian people. That means, of 
course, working to establish basic security. Clearly, we need to reign 
in the armed gangs and former military. But that is not enough. Long-
term stability also requires a sustained commitment to democratic 
institutions and to economic development.
  Last July, the United States pledged approximately $250 million in 
aid for fiscal years 2004 and 2005. The United States provided $130 
million of that assistance last year. That's a good start. But we need 
to do more.
  Mr. President, the United Nations peacekeeping force in Haiti, 
MINUSTAH, is making important contributions to peace and stability in 
Haiti. While it was criticized for early inactivity, MINUSTAH has 
recently stepped up its efforts to disarm former members of the Haitian 
military and others. Indeed, recently two United Nations peacekeepers 
were killed during operations to control police facilities previously 
occupied by members of the former military.
  Despite this increase in activity, it is hard to imagine how MINUSTAH 
can establish real security at its current force level. MINUSTAH only 
reached its full strength of approximately 7,000 military personnel and 
1,600 civilian police officers in December. Haiti also has about 4,000 
of its own police officers, but most of these individuals are badly 
trained and poorly armed.
  By comparison, New York City, which has roughly the same number of 
citizens as Haiti, is patrolled by 40,000 well trained and equipped 
police officers. That is over three times the number of security 
personnel as in Haiti. And it is worth noting that New York is not 
plagued by many of the problems that Haiti faces every day.
  That is why this amendment includes funding to support police 
activities in Haiti. A critical aspect of this assistance must be 
police reform. Because regrettably, human rights groups report that 
some members of the Haitian police have committed abuses, including 
arbitrary arrests and, possibly, extrajudicial executions. Unless we 
create a climate of trust in Haiti with respect to that nation's police 
force, there can be no lasting security. And it is difficult to build 
trust without respect for the rule of law and the rights of 
individuals. Any police assistance, therefore, must be used to teach 
good policing practices, not just provide new resources for personnel, 
guns and ammunition.
  Mr. President, the elections scheduled for this fall in Haiti could 
be a critical step toward achieving lasting stability. After all, only 
democratically elected governments have the legitimacy necessary to 
fully address the persistent security and socio-economic problems 
facing the Haitian people.
  With assistance from the United Nations and the Organization of 
American States, the Haitian government is organizing voter 
registration and preparing the technical measures necessary to conduct 
accurate and fair polling. Smooth and successful polling operations are 
necessary to ensure that the election outcome is never in doubt. To 
enhance the effectiveness of these efforts, this amendment would make 
available critically needed funds for election assistance.
  To ensure full legitimacy, however, I believe that the Haitian 
government must also take steps to re-engage with the Lavalas family 
party of President Aristide, which has threatened to boycott the 
elections. The Lavalas party is the largest and best organized party in 
Haiti, and without its participation, I am concerned that the election 
results will not be accepted by the Haitian people.

[[Page S4093]]

  A critical step toward re-engaging the Lavalas party would be 
releasing former Prime Minister Neptune and any other Lavalas party 
members who are currently being held without formal charges being 
brought against them by Haitian authorities. To that end, I, along with 
several of my colleagues, wrote to Prime Minister Latortue requesting 
that he inform us on what charges the former Prime Minister is being 
held, and if there are no formal charges filed, to release him 
immediately. I have yet to receive an answer from the Haitian 
government.
  But in the long-term, no single election can eliminate the 
instability and disorder that has afflicted the Haitian people for 
centuries. These problems have their root in persistent poverty and 
economic dislocation, and they can only be resolved through active 
engagement by the United States.
  Haiti is the poorest country in the western hemisphere; 65 percent of 
the population lives below the poverty line. The average income is 
$250. Life expectancy is a mere 53 years, and half of the population 
does not have access to clean drinking water. Only 50 percent of the 
population works in the formal economy. In such an environment, is it 
any wonder that Haiti has suffered from years of violence and disorder?
  Sadly, children are particularly affected by these impoverished 
conditions. Over one in ten Haitian children dies before age five. 
Approximately 20 percent of all children suffer from malnourishment. 
Haiti also has the highest prevalence of HIV/AIDS in the western 
hemisphere, and 4,000 to 6,000 children in Haiti are born with the 
virus each year. Yet according to the World Bank, in the 1990's, there 
were only two physicians for every 10,000 Haitians. That figure is 
unlikely to have improved. To combat the effects of such abject 
poverty, this amendment would provide assistance for employment 
projects.
  For many Haitians, moreover, economic progress is impossible because 
they lack access to needed infrastructure. There are not enough roads, 
schools or hospitals. That is why funds designated by this amendment 
would also be available for important public works.
  Lastly, I encourage my colleagues to use the benefits of trade to 
help the Haitian people. Last Congress, I was proud to cosponsor 
Senator DeWine's HERO Act. This important legislation would have helped 
reinvigorate the Haitian economy by granting preferential trade 
treatment to certain Haitian textile products. I was pleased that the 
Senate passed this bill last year. Unfortunately, it met opposition in 
the other body. I hope we can make that legislation a priority in the 
109th Congress.
  Mr. President, in 1994, the United States launched an armed 
intervention to reestablish Haitian democracy. Last year, the United 
States again sent a contingent of Marines to restore stability. Too 
often in our history, our neglect of Haiti's most basic problems have 
left us with no choice but to intervene when instability breaks out 
into open crisis. Only through proactive leadership and a commitment to 
long-term development in Haiti can we break this cycle. For all these 
reasons, I am pleased that this amendment has been accepted as part of 
the managers' package. I urge the conferees to ensure that this 
language is included in the conference agreement of this bill.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I wish to address several amendments 
offered to the emergency supplemental appropriations bill this week. We 
are debating this emergency appropriation primarily to see to the needs 
of the men and women who are serving on the front line in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. That's because it's our job to make sure that our troops 
get the support and the resources they need when they need them.
  But there is another front line we should not forget about, and that 
includes the home front. And serving on the home front are the men and 
women of the National Guard, Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs 
agents, as well as the police forces who serve in big and small 
communities alike.
  They, too, need resources and support from Congress. And while we 
have a process by which Congress determines on a yearly basis what 
those needs are, I am not content to just wait and see. I am concerned 
about the fate of important legislation that was passed last fall that 
authorized putting more border patrol agents on our front line--which 
more and more often is up on the highline of Montana, and not only 
across desert stretches on the Southern border.
  That legislation, which was negotiated as part of the National 
Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 and signed by President Bush, 
recognized for more personnel patrolling our borders. Now, while the 
administration's fiscal year 2006 budget did not propose the funding 
called for in that legislation, it is up to all of us in Congress to 
make sure that the border patrol gets the help it needs. That is why I 
am a cosponsor of Senator Byrd's amendment to deliver the funds our 
border security personnel deserve.
  But we have to do more. We need to help the border patrol and other 
Federal and State law enforcement agencies get their workload under 
control and focus on the most serious threats to our Nation's security.
  Surely, we all want to know who the millions of undocumented aliens 
are who cross our borders each year. And many of these people live and 
work amongst us. The vast majority of these undocumented workers are 
here because there are jobs--in the service, agricultural or other 
sectors--for which employers cannot find willing American workers.
  As long as tough standards are in place for (1) proving that no 
willing American workers could be found, (2) documenting the background 
of the worker and the nature of the work, and (3) consequences for 
breaking the law, I think we are a safer Nation when we encourage 
illegal migrants and their employers to come out from the shadows and 
show themselves.
  Encouraging employers and foreign workers to work within the bounds 
of law will allow our border agents to better focus their efforts on 
those who would enter the country to do our citizens harm. And up on 
the Northern border, what used to be our nation's backdoor and is 
quickly becoming the front door, we face that more unlikely threat 
precisely because all eyes are on the southern border.
  I'm not talking about amnesty, and I'm not talking about rushing into 
some sweeping immigration reform. I think that requires broader and 
more considered deliberation by Congress. But it does make sense to 
begin to document and track the movement of illegal migrants who would 
otherwise pay taxes and abide by our laws if they could earn the chance 
to do so. This in turn helps our small and seasonal businesses maintain 
a reliable, screened and legal workforce, and it allows us to focus our 
attention on stopping would-be terrorists from crossing our borders.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
amendments and third reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read 
a third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the 
bill pass?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 109 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl

[[Page S4094]]


     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Inouye
       
  The bill (H.R. 1268), as amended, was passed, as follows:
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)

       The title was amended so as to read: ``An Act Making 
     Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Defense, the Global 
     War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2005, and for other purposes.''.

  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote by which the bill was 
passed.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate insists 
on its amendment, requests a conference with the House on the 
disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair appoints Mr. 
Cochran, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Specter, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Bond, Mr. 
McConnell, Mr. Burns, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Craig, 
Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Allard, Mr. Byrd, Mr. 
Inouye, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Reid of Nevada, Mr. 
Kohl, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Dorgan, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Johnson, 
and Ms. Landrieu conferees on the part of the Senate.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I thank all Senators for their 
cooperation in the passage of this bill. There were a lot of amendments 
offered, and we agreed to some of them. Some of them were adopted. We 
are going to conference with the House now to work out differences 
between the two bills. I am confident we will be able to come back with 
a product in the form of a conference report which the Senate can 
support, which will continue to support the additional funding that is 
needed for this fiscal year for our troops in the field, for those who 
are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world in the 
war on terror, and will meet the needs of our State Department through 
replenishment of accounts that have been depleted because of the 
disaster in the tsunami episode and for other needs the Senate and 
House have seen fit to include in this appropriations bill.
  As my first bill to manager on the floor of the Senate as chairman of 
the Appropriations Committee, I have to give great credit to the 
assistance I received personally from staff members here in the Senate, 
other Senators as well who are more experienced and who chaired 
important subcommittees in the past and this full committee, as a 
matter of fact.
  Specifically, I am thinking about Senator Byrd, the distinguished 
Senator from West Virginia, who has served as chairman of this 
committee and ranking member of the committee; Senator Stevens, who is 
chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee; Senator Inouye, 
who is the senior Democrat on that subcommittee, both of whom helped 
shape the content of this bill in areas under the jurisdiction of their 
subcommittee; and the staff director, Keith Kennedy, who is back from a 
leave of absence he had doing other things for the last several years 
but who, as a former staff director of this committee, provided strong 
leadership for our staff and gave me tremendous support which I needed 
to get this bill to this point. I am very grateful to him for his 
support and those who worked closely with him, like Terry Sauvain on 
the Democratic side; Sid Ashworth, who is the clerk of the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee, and her counterpart on the Democratic 
side, Charlie Houy; Paul Grove; Tim Rieser; Clayton Heil, who is 
counsel to the committee; and Chuck Kieffer, all of whom provided very 
important and appreciated support to me during the handling of this 
legislation.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as we bring to a close the debate on the 
emergency supplemental, H.R. 1268, I thank my good friend from the 
State of Mississippi, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, 
Thad Cochran. Senator Cochran was recently installed as the new 
Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and, although he has managed 
numerous bills on the floor in the past, this is the first 
appropriations bill that he has managed as the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee. I compliment Senator Cochran for a job well 
done, and I especially thank him for his patience. In fact, all of the 
Members should thank him for his patience. We have been on this bill 
for the better part of 2 weeks, and we have given consideration to 
many, many amendments. Throughout all of these many days of debate on 
the underlying bill and on the numerous amendments offered by both 
sides, Senator Cochran has kept a level head, and he has shown patience 
in seeing that this supplemental is processed in an orderly manner and 
that no Member is denied an opportunity to have input on this bill.
  I also join with Senator Cochran in expressing gratitude to the staff 
members on both sides of the aisle who helped us with processing this 
bill and all those amendments. They worked late into the evening hours 
on some of these matters, and I appreciate not only their hard work but 
also their unstinting dedication to this institution.
  Mr. President, this is only one in a series of supplemental requests 
that have come from the administration asking the Congress to 
appropriate more funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and for 
reconstruction efforts in those countries. With approval of this 
supplemental, we will have approved over $280 billion for the two wars 
through emergency supplemental bills. We should not continue to fund 
these wars in this way. This is not the chairman's fault. He can only 
respond to the administration's proposals. It is evident that many of 
my colleagues are in agreement that funding for war activities should 
be processed in regular annual appropriations measures, not through 
emergency supplementals. This was clearly and emphatically expressed 
again in of the sense of the Senate amendment earlier this week. I hope 
that this administration will take serious note of the Senate's strong 
view in this regard.
  I assure my colleagues here today and the people of this country that 
I fully and wholeheartedly support our men and women in uniform. I give 
these troops my gratitude and my respect. I wish that we could give 
them more--I wish that we could give them a clearly defined mission, 
with a clearly defined strategy for ending the war in Iraq and coming 
home.
  But, this administration is not winding down its military operations 
in Iraq--that is evident from the size of this most recent request 
submitted by the President. To the contrary, it appears that the United 
States may be gearing up either to accommodate a permanent military 
presence in Iraq or to establish a launching pad for other military 
operations in the region. This, certainly, would be the wrong message 
to send to the people of Iraq and others in the region. I pray that 
this is not the case.
  Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.

                          ____________________