[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.
____________________