[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 60 (Tuesday, May 10, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4816-S4849]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR DEFENSE, THE GLOBAL WAR
ON TERROR, AND TSUNAMI RELIEF ACT, 2005--CONFERENCE REPORT--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I believe, by unanimous consent, I am to
be recognized at 2:15 for 15 minutes.
I allocate 2\1/2\ minutes of that time to the Senator from Wisconsin,
Mr. Kohl.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, although I will vote for this conference
report, I feel obliged to alert my colleagues to a serious flaw. This
bill does not provide enough international food aid. And if emerging
reports are correct, I fear we are about to enter a spring and summer
of agony in some of the poorest parts of the world.
This situation troubles me a great deal. Here we are, the strongest
nation on Earth, and we are rightfully appropriating funds to maintain
that strength. But with enormous strength comes a moral obligation to
respond appropriately to pain and suffering. This bill fails to respond
appropriately.
When the supplemental was first considered in this body, Senator
DeWine and I and others offered an amendment to provide a total of $470
million for PL-480 food aid. That may sound like a lot to some, but it
totaled merely six-tenths of 1 percent of the total spending in the
bill.
Mr. President, $346 million of our amendment was intended to meet the
U.S. share of world-wide food emergency needs as already identified by
the U.S. Government. Another $12 million was slated to restore Food for
Peace resources diverted to address the tsunami. Finally, $112 million
was intended to restore food aid development projects that the United
States has already pledged to other countries this year.
It troubles me, and it should trouble everyone here, that we may not
be able to deliver on those pledges. What a disturbing message that
sends to the rest of the world. It says that while we may talk a good
game on food aid, you cannot be too sure just where we stand when the
going gets tough.
The numbers in our amendment were not pulled out of thin air. They
were the result of close analysis of the world situation. In light of
new reports from Ethiopia, I worry that even the amounts included in
our original amendment may have been, in fact, too conservative.
Sadly, the conference reduced the food aid total to $240 million, a
level that is well below a split with the level proposed by the
administration and adopted by the House.
I ask unanimous consent that an alert I received from several faith-
based organizations about the situation in Ethiopia be printed into the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Flash Alert From JRP Members
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia--April 2005
The three Churches and two Church-related agencies
(Ethiopian Orthodox Church, Ethiopian Catholic Church,
Ethiopian Evangelical Church Mekane Yesus, Catholic Relief
Services and Lutheran World Federation) who make up the
ecumenical Joint Relief Partnership feel compelled to bring
to the public's attention a situation that if not immediately
addressed in a forceful manner will bring about widespread
disaster resulting in untold suffering and death for a number
of people--a number that is rapidly approaching the 8-10
million mark of Ethiopian people at risk in 2005.
This humanitarian situation has thus far received little
international attention for a variety of reasons, which in
addition to the reluctance of the Ethiopian Government to
advertise it are the following: Severe drought conditions.
The late start-up of the Ethiopian government's national
Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) which is meant to
provide multi-year support to over 5 million chronically food
insecure people. The lack of adequate resources to provide
food and non-food assistance to 3.1 million acute food
insecure people.
Drought Conditions: The current reality is that the early
belg rains (February/March) have failed in many areas,
including East and West Hararghe and Arsi zones of Oromiya,
parts of Southern Nations Nationalities and Peoples (SNNP)
and parts of Tigray. The situation is severe, with many
pocket areas showing high levels of global acute and severe
acute malnutrition in children under 5. As an example,
reports from the Disaster Prevention and Preparedness
Commission (DPPC) indicate that large numbers of severely
malnourished children are entering one hospital in East
Hararghe from three woredas seriously affected by
malnutrition.
There are rising and alarming levels of distress migration
in certain areas, water is particularly scarce in some areas
and cereal prices are high.
Delays in Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP): This is a
program designed to overcome people's dependence on food
assistance. While this is an important step, continued robust
response to emergency conditions is critical to ensure the
success of more developmentally oriented programs.
Unfortunately, this program, which was meant to begin in
January 2005, didn't start until late March in most areas of
the country and, in some areas, still has not begun. Without
going into details of why this foul-up occurred, the fact is
that people targeted under the PSNP have, in most cases, not
yet received the planned assistance and there are now
deteriorating health conditions, especially in women and
children. Many of the chronically food insecure now face
acute conditions, themselves.
Poor Resourcing of 2005 Appeal: Current figures indicate
that 66% of food needs are pledged and only 10% of non-food
needs. It must be noted, however, that this includes an un-
guaranteed WFP pledge. With the number of people requiring
assistance continually increasing, the level of resources
required is certain to increase significantly. While 66%
sounds promising, it should be noted that, using current
assessments going on, this figure may not adequately
represent the real need.
Among the reasons for the low level of resources are: Donor
attention being focused on other emergencies (Darfur and
tsunami), greater emphasis being placed within the country on
PSNP rather than ongoing emergency needs, pressure to
demonstrate that the country is moving away from annual
Emergency Appeals, misleading recent WFP/FAO crop assessment
suggesting a 25% increase in yield over last year, and
traditional food donors having their own constraints.
Unless commitments o food and non-food items are made
immediately, the JRP will not be able to pre-position food in
the most severely affected areas prior to the rainy season
which starts in June because of poor road conditions at that
time. This will lead to further setbacks and great loss of
life.
It is with the above in mind, that the JRP is appealing to
its traditional Partners to bring this situation to the
world's attention and to act as promptly as possible.
With every best wish, we remain, the JRP Members:
Ethiopian Orthodox Church,
Ethiopian Catholic Church,
Ethiopian Evangelical Church Mekane Yesus,
Catholic Relief Services,
Lutheran World Federation.
Mr. KOHL. This situation is not going to go away. I have grave fears
that images coming out of places such as Ethiopia in the coming months
may reveal a tragedy unfolding before our very eyes. And what is most
troubling is that this may be a tragedy that we could have helped
avoid.
I will soon be sending a letter to the President encouraging him to
consider other emergency authorities to address this dire situation.
Specifically, we will ask him to utilize the Bill Emerson Humanitarian
Trust to address this pain and suffering. I urge all my colleagues to
join us in sending this message to the President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Wisconsin. I
[[Page S4817]]
agree with all he has described. I think this is a really important
issue and increased food aid is critically important. So I appreciate
him being here.
I will speak for a moment about this $82 billion supplemental bill.
Most of it is to restore accounts in the U.S. Army and other military
installations or military organizations because that money was not in
the budget. We had asked last year that it be put in the appropriations
process so that it could be considered. We know that we are going to
spend money in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the administration, year after
year, does not put any money in for these accounts and then comes back
with an emergency request later.
It is a fiction that is being created. We know this is costing money
every single month. I guess the reason to do it on an emergency basis
is so that nobody has to pay for it. This is $82 billion not paid for,
just emergency, stack it on top of the debt and say to the troops: Go
to Iraq, serve your country, do your duty and, by the way, when you
come back we will have the debt waiting for you, so you have served in
Iraq and you can also come back and pay for the cost of that. That does
not make any sense to me.
We had a small provision on the issue of government spending when
this bill was before the Senate, and I want to talk about it for a
moment. It dealt with the appointment of an independent counsel in 1995
that was to investigate the allegation that a Cabinet official lied
about payments he had made to his mistress. So an independent counsel
was formed 10 years ago. That independent counsel was to investigate
Mr. Cisneros, a man who I may have met in 1993 or 1994 and have not
seen since. In any event, an independent counsel was appointed to
investigate whether he lied about payments he had made to a mistress.
Ten years ago, that independent counsel started working and spending
money. In 1999, Mr. Cisneros, the subject of the investigation, pleaded
guilty to a misdemeanor. In 2001, 2 years later, the President pardoned
him. So 10 years ago the independent counsel was formed, 6 years ago
the subject of the investigation pleaded guilty, and 4 years ago the
subject of the investigation was pardoned by the President.
This independent counsel is still in business and still spending
money. In the last 6 months, the independent counsel has spent nearly
$1.3 million. I offered an amendment, that the Senate passed, which
says, tell them to finish by June and shut down. In fact, 2 years ago,
the three-judge panel which supervises this independent counsel told
him to wrap it up, and get it done. This independent counsel has now
spent $21 million over 10 years, and so we offered an amendment that
said, shut it down.
The Senate accepted it. It went to conference and it was pulled out.
So the independent counsel still spends money.
The Wall Street Journal wrote an editorial saying this was some
nefarious amendment designed to try and protect some information that
exists deep in the bowels about some scandal with the Internal Revenue
Service--typical political sludge coming from the editorial page of the
Wall Street Journal. Then we have the same sludge offered by Mr. Novak
in his column, I believe it was last Thursday, suggesting there is
something else going on here.
Well, let me just say this: If we have enough money to have
independent counsels continuing to be paid 6 years after the subject of
their investigation pled guilty, and 4 years after they were pardoned,
it is a high-water mark for bad judgment. It is unbelievable. All it
describes to me, with respect to Mr. Novak and the folks who believe we
should keep spending this money, is that even waste has a constituency,
in some cases a very aggressive constituency.
We really need to save the taxpayers' money, and this is an
unbelievable waste of the taxpayers' money.
Let me ask how much time I have remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eleven minutes.
Judicial Nominations
Mr. DORGAN. Robert Fulghum wrote a book entitled simply, ``All I
Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten.'' Many have read that
book. Some of it is, of course, wash your hands, share, be nice to
others. One, of course, is to tell the truth. That simple kindergarten
lesson is lost in some cases and particularly in the media wars that go
on over significant issues.
I brought to the floor today some advertisements that are being run
across the country in support of those who in this Senate Chamber are
prepared to exercise what is called a self-described ``nuclear option''
by the majority. What is their nuclear option? Well, they are in kind
of a snit. They do not get all of the judges approved--just over 95
percent of the judges sent to us by the President. Now, because not
every single judge has been approved by the Senate, the majority party
is out of sorts, cranky, upset, and sufficiently so that they and the
groups from outside this Chamber have decided what they ought to do is
violate the rules of the Senate in order to change the rules of the
Senate.
Let me just point out what is happening as they lead up to this so-
called nuclear option where they violate the rules of the Senate. They
are creating their own fiction. The President, by the Constitution, has
the right to nominate Federal judges who will sit for a lifetime on the
Federal bench. We have a separate responsibility to advise and consent.
The President sends a name down, and we say yes or no.
This President, George W. Bush, has sent 218 names of people he wants
to serve for a lifetime on the Federal bench. We have approved 208 of
them. Because they have not gotten approval for all of them, they have
decided they want to violate the rules of the Senate in order to change
the rules of the Senate.
Let me give an example of one of the 10, Janice Rogers Brown. Here is
what she says, and I am quoting her directly:
Senior citizens blithely cannibalize their grandchildren
because they have a right to get as much free stuff as the
political system will permit them to extract.
One does not have to be a rocket scientist to understand what this
means. This is somebody whose philosophy believes that there is
something inherently wrong with Social Security and Medicare. It is the
old folks living off the rest of the country.
I do not know, maybe it is a person who does not know senior
citizens, has not visited a nursing home, does not understand what it
is like to work without very much money, without resources, and wonder
what their retirement is going to be like.
Do I want this person sitting on the Federal bench? No. Am I pleased
that I participated in saying, no, this person should not sit on the
Federal bench? One can bet their life I am.
There are groups that are advertising in our States, and they are
saying this is an attack on people of faith if we do not support these
judges, or it is an attack on a minority.
Here is a religious organization that is running ads in States:
. . . Never before has the political minority hijacked
democracy in this way. . . .
This religious organization says, in paid political advertising:
. . . Senate Democrats have abused the rules . . .
Another religious organization states:
. . . Never before in history have judges with majority
support been denied a vote by the misuse of the filibuster
rule. . . .
Well, there are Ten Commandments and they can be found in the 20th
chapter of Exodus. I suggest to those who throw around this issue of
faith, those organizations that call themselves religious organizations
and want to buy political ads and then not tell the truth in the ads,
that they refer to the 20th chapter of Exodus and the ninth
commandment, thou shalt not bear false witness. There are Ten
Commandments, not nine. Do not skip the ninth when getting involved in
this discussion.
The least that is owed to the American people is the truth, and it is
simply not true that the minority in the Senate has abused the rules,
or has hijacked democracy. That is simply not true.
The facts are that we have supported 208 of 218 nominees sent to us
by this President. The facts are that the 60-vote requirement to get
cloture in this Chamber is a requirement that has existed for a long
time, and it is a requirement that is healthy for this Chamber. It is
protective of the minority, whether it be Republican or Democrat. It is
what requires compromise. Compromise is a good thing.
[[Page S4818]]
There are some in this Chamber who think that no one should ever
compromise. If one party runs the White House, the Senate and the
House, they ought to have it their way all the time, and if they do not
get it their way, they have a right to be angry and to change the rules
of the Senate even if they violate the rules to do it.
There is a way to change the rules of the Senate. It takes 67 votes.
I hope the 67 votes is not in dispute.
The majority has concocted a scheme by which with 51 votes they will
change or attempt to change the rules of the Senate with something they
mislabel as the nuclear option.
This is something that disserves the interests of the Senate and the
American people. We have very serious problems with health care costs.
We have problems with the cost of prescription drugs. We have jobs
moving overseas in unlimited quantity. We have trade deficits, the
largest in the history of this country. We have serious energy
problems, and guess what, we have a majority that has their nose bent
out of shape because there are 10 judges out of 218 who somehow did not
make it, and that is an affront to a majority that insists that they
have it their way all the time. I didn't take Latin because I was in a
high school senior class of nine, but I think the term ``totus porcus''
might just best describe what the majority party believes it is due on
these issues. They want it all--the whole hog--right now. If they do
not get it, they are prepared to go to the ultimate length that they
describe as the nuclear option.
My hope is that in the coming days, heads will clear, and they will
rethink this approach. Both parties will be in the minority at some
point. Both parties have been and will be in the future at some point.
I believe any majority party, whether it be a Democratic Party or a
Republican Party, that decides to break the rules to change the rules
will rue the day that happens.
I came here because I want to work in a constructive way on public
policy. I hope we can continue to do that. But I read the Constitution
again and again and understand what it says. It says this Government of
ours works when we work together. The 60-vote majority in the Senate I
know is nettlesome. I know it gets under people's skin. But it is what
has always distinguished this Senate from other bodies. It is what
requires compromise. It says to a President--any President, Republican
or Democratic President--when you send a name down here for a lifetime
appointment to the bench, it ought to be a name that reflects some
semblance of compromise; and we have approved 208 of them. One of them
I regret we approved. I voted against that one, by the way, a candidate
for a lifetime appointment on the court who has written that he
believes women are subservient to men. I do not think that person
belongs on the bench, but the person made it through here. The fact is,
208 of them are now serving for a lifetime on the Federal bench, which
I think is extraordinary cooperation. I believe we have the lowest
vacancy rate on the Federal bench that we have had for 15 years or
more.
It is profoundly disappointing to see what is going on around the
country with a massive amount of money going to the television and
radio stations, some by religious organizations, neck deep in politics,
saying you know what the minority party is doing in the Senate is
hijacking democracy and engaging in mischief, abusing the rules and so
on and so forth. I again say to them that is, in my judgment, bearing
false witness. They ought to know it.
Let's have a real debate--a thoughtful debate, not a thoughtless
debate--about how we proceed to address the major issues affecting
America. Yes, the major issues: health care, trade, jobs, energy--the
sort of things that determine what kind of life our kids and grandkids
are going to have, what kind of opportunity they are going to have.
When they sit around the supper table at night as a family, what are
the things people talk about? They talk about, Do I have a good job?
Does it pay well? Does it have benefits? Can I care for my family with
this income? Do Grandpa and Grandma have access to decent health care?
Do we live in a safe neighborhood? Do we breathe air that is quality
air and drink healthy water that is not going to injure our health?
These are the kinds of things that are important to people. Do we send
our kids to schools we are proud of? Yet, are we debating that on the
floor of the Senate? No. No, regrettably not. That is not the central
set of issues we are debating.
We are now debating this so-called nuclear option. Why? Because out
of 218 names sent to us by the President asking for a lifetime
appointment to the Federal courts, we have approved only 208. We have
approved only over 95 percent, and that is a problem for the majority.
A majority will not long remain a majority if it does not understand
the requirement that all of us have to work together: to compromise, to
tell the truth, and to do what is best for this country.
Mr. President, let me ask how much time I have remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three seconds.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me go much longer. I am sorry, for 3
seconds let me thank my colleagues.
This is the time to be controlled on our side by consent, if I might
read it into the record? My guess is it will go back and forth: Senator
Byrd, 20 minutes; Senator Reid, 15 minutes; Senator Salazar, 15
minutes; Senator Corzine, 10 minutes; Senator Obama, 10 minutes,
Senator Lieberman, 10 minutes; Senator Leahy, 15 minutes; Senator
Durbin, 1 hour, 10 minutes of that to go to Senator Murray; and Senator
Feingold, 10 minutes.
Let me ask by consent to understand that is the progress on our side,
understanding it would be interspersed with Republican speakers.
Mr. COCHRAN. Reserving the right to object, let me ask the Senator,
if I may, does the total of that amount of time exceed the amount under
the order that your side of the aisle has been granted, or is it less
than that?
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am told this is within the time that has
been granted.
Mr. COCHRAN. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I am here to talk about the
supplemental appropriations bill. While the Senator from North Dakota
is here--he is one of the best speakers in the Senate. He can take a
story, tell it, and be clear about what he is saying. He has spoken
eloquently about the need for a compromise. I will suggest one to him.
I suggested it 2 years ago when I came to the Senate and heard the
debate about Judge Estrada. I said at that time that, even if a
Democratic President were elected, that I would never vote to
filibuster his nomination. In other words, I would always vote to give
a President of the United States a fair up-or-down vote on the floor of
the Senate on his or her nominee.
I have repeated my pledge to do that on this floor several different
times, and, I would say to my friend from North Dakota, if he would get
8 or 10 Democrats to make the same pledge, there would not be any
filibuster. There would be no need for a rules change. We could talk
about gas prices, we could talk about schools, and we could talk about
the war in Iraq. So that spirit of compromise is there.
I was not here during whatever went on before, and, whatever it was,
I wish it had not gone on. What I can remember, going back to 1967,
which is when I came to this body as a legislative aide even before the
President pro tempore was a Senator, is that all during that time this
tactic was not used to deny a President an up-or-down vote on his
judicial nominees. The only possible argument during that time was the
case of Abe Fortas in 1968, and that was a little different.
But put all that to the side, the ``who shot John'' or ``who didn't
shoot John.'' If several on that side and several on this side would
simply say, as a way of avoiding this train wreck, that we would pledge
right now, during our time here, always to vote to give a President an
up-or-down vote on his or her judicial nominees, then there would be no
need for a rules change, and we could go on to our other business.
Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. ALEXANDER. I will be happy to.
Mr. DORGAN. Let me just observe, because the Senator mentioned me, my
[[Page S4819]]
point of supporting the 60-vote threshold is that is what requires
compromise. The very presence of the filibuster is what requires
compromise. Otherwise you do not have any incentive to compromise, be
it the executive branch relative to the legislative branch. That was
not my point. It wasn't that we should find a way to allow the nuclear
option to exist without changing the rules of the Senate.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I appreciate my friend's point. May I
make my remarks now?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the supplemental appropriations bill is
going to come up. We are going to vote on it. I commend the chairman of
the committee for accomplishing what is a difficult job--getting a body
that operates by unanimous consent to agree on something and moving it
through.
The purpose of the bill is to support the men and women who are
fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. I was there about a month ago. There
are so many Tennesseans in Kuwait and Afghanistan and Iraq that it
seemed like a Tennessee homecoming. There are literally thousands
there--the postmasters of Winfield and Rob Camp. The President of the
Rotary Club in Lexington, a physician, just came home. The editor of
the newspaper in Dyersburg, two deputy sheriffs from my home county,
the superintendent of schools from Athens--these are people in the
Reserves or in the National Guard with mortgages and families and jobs,
with money and insurance issues at home. They are fighting for us. Some
are dying, and they are risking their lives every day. Of course I want
to vote to spend every penny we need to spend to support them and to
keep them safe.
Once we set forward on a mission, on a military mission, we should
have the stomach to see it all the way through to the end in a success
strategy, not an exit strategy, and to support the American men and
women whom we ask to go.
That does not stop me from objecting and expressing my disappointment
to two provisions in the bill. One is the so-called REAL ID Act.
Actually, unlike a lot of legislation we pass here, this is well named.
This really is a national identification card for the United States of
America for the first time in our history. We have never done this
before, and we should not be doing it without a full debate. This REAL
ID provision turns 190 million driver's licenses, which are now
ineffective ID cards, into more effective national identification
cards. To add insult to injury, we have also slapped State governments
with the bill for them.
I strongly object to this. When I was Governor of Tennessee, I vetoed
our State ID card twice because I thought it was an infringement on
civil liberties. I thought that driver's licenses are for driving. If
we need an ID card, we should have an ID card. The legislature
overruled me. I actually had to get one of those cards myself in order
to get into the White House, so I lost that battle. So I am very
reluctant for this country to have a national ID card. But I
reluctantly concluded that, after 9/11, we have to have one and that we
ought to be thinking about what would be the best kind of ID card.
I believe the right way to consider that is when we are dealing with
comprehensive legislation on immigration, which I hope we do this year,
and tackle that problem and the best way to do it. Is the best way to
do it to turn the driver's licenses examiners in all the States of the
country issuing 190 million driver's licenses into CIA agents? I don't
know what it is like in Ohio or other States, but in Tennessee the
driver's licenses examiners by and large are there for the purpose of
figuring out whether you can parallel park and to take your picture.
They are not trained to tell whether you are an al-Qaida terrorist.
They are not trained in order to review four different documents and
then look at 10,000, maybe 20,000 different databases around the
country.
I wonder whether it is even the right approach, in terms of having a
national ID card, to rely on driver's licenses. Maybe we should be
relying on passports. That has been an efficient system in this
country. Or maybe even better, and I suspect this would be better, we
should turn the Social Security card--which is directly related to
work, which is the subject of the discussion and most of the concern
about immigration--into a more definite kind of identification.
But no; instead, without one single hearing in the Senate about a
national ID card--which we might not, under our Constitution, even be
able to require to be presented to a law enforcement officer--we just
pass one, and then we send the bill to the States.
Here we are, a Republican Congress who got elected in 1994 promising
to end unfunded mandates--and the Senator in the chair was one of the
leaders in doing that--and what do we do, we come up with this big
idea, pass it, hold a press conference, and send the bill to the
Governors. We do that time after time after time, and we should not be
doing that. That is not the way our system works.
It is possible that some Governor may look at this and say: Wait a
minute, who are these people in Washington telling us what to do with
our driver's licenses and making us pay for them, too? We will just use
our own licenses for certifying drivers, and Congress can create its
own ID card for people who want to fly and do other Federal things. And
if Congress doesn't do that, then we will give out the home telephone
numbers of all the Congressmen and let the people--of California, say--
call everybody up here and say, ``why did you keep me off the airplane
when I needed to get somewhere?''
That is what we have done. We have just assumed that every single
State will want to ante up, turn its driver's licenses examiners into
CIA agents, and pay hundreds of millions of dollars to do an almost
impossible task over the next 3 years.
We did that without any recognition in this legislation that we are
not the State government, we are the Federal Government, and, if we
want a national ID card, we should be creating a Federal ID card. If we
want the States to create one, we should talk to them about it, and
then we should pay for it.
So in the end, the States will pay the costs. In the end, the States
will listen to the complaints from citizens who are going to be
standing in long lines while they search for four kinds of
identification; the driver's license examiner tries to connect with
thousands of databases, which they have no capacity to do today. The
States will take the blame when somebody uses a driver's license
inappropriately.
The REAL ID Act has been structured in such a way that it is not
technically an unfunded mandate, but anybody listening to this debate
knows it violates the spirit of our promises in 1994 and 1995 not to do
this anymore.
So I intend to offer an amendment at the appropriate time that will
have two main points, but the overall point is to have the Federal
Government pay for the cost of this new requirement that the States
have no choice but to accept. It will allow States to submit
documentation to the Department of Homeland Security of what the costs
are, and it will establish a process to pay the annual increase in
those costs.
I wish we had done this in a different way. I think we should have
honestly faced the fact that we now need some sort of national
identification card. I say that reluctantly because, as I said, I
vetoed even a State card. But times have changed. But to do this
without a hearing and without our tradition of respect for civil
liberties and our respect for federalism, I think is wrong.
Mr. President, if I may take 2 more minutes, I would like to express
my disappointment with one other provision. This conference report says
we do not trust President Bush in dealing with the Palestinian
Territory. Here we are, a Republican Congress, at least by a majority,
with a Republican President who is leading a lot of the world to
freedom, who is just returning from a triumphant visit to Georgia--a
great beacon--who has taken the courageous step of trying to help solve
the Middle East problems, and we are saying: Mr. President, we are
going to appropriate money to help with the emerging democracy in the
Palestinian Territory, but we do not trust you to spend the money.
That is what this provision does. The Senate did not vote that way.
The Senate voted another way. The Senate voted to give the President
the right to waive the authority, giving the President the right to
decide, in effect, who got the money.
[[Page S4820]]
The reason I think the provision makes so little sense is because we
are going to turn around and say in a few weeks, as the Israelis pull
out of the Gaza Strip, Who is responsible for security there? We are
going to expect the Palestinian Authority to be responsible for
security there. Who is responsible for feeding some of the poorest
people in the world? We are going to expect the Palestinian Authority
to be responsible for that.
If we are going to hold the Palestinian Authority responsible, the
President might want to give them the money. Arafat is dead. There is a
new finance minister there who has impressed all of us on a bipartisan
basis.
He was born in Palestine, lived here, and got his degree at the
University of Texas. He is doing things in a way that is open. He has
earned the confidence of people all over the Middle East. He is taking
control of the money. And if he stopped doing that, the President could
stop giving him the money.
But why in the world would the Congress show such a lack of respect
to the President of the United States, in the middle of a peace
process, by saying: ``No, Mr. President, we do not trust you to make a
decision about what to do with the money that we appropriate for the
Palestinian Authority or to help the Palestinian Territory emerge as a
democracy''?
So I am very disappointed by that as well. And there is other money
that has been authorized this year that does give the President that
authority. I hope in future conferences and in future debates and
discussions we recognize that Arafat is dead, there is hopefully a
democracy emerging, and there is a finance minister there who is making
public accounting of all the money. He is direct depositing money for
the troops. He is publicly advertising it through bids. He has
impressed his neighbors, and he has impressed all of us who have
visited with him on a bipartisan basis. I hope we keep that in mind as
we consider this issue.
Thank you, Mr. President, for the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty minutes.
Mr. BYRD. Twenty minutes. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as
I may consume within that 20-minute limitation.
I again thank Chairman Thad Cochran for his patience in the
processing of this supplemental appropriations bill when it came before
the Senate. He was especially patient during the Senate consideration
in seeing that all who wanted to offer amendments were afforded the
opportunity to be heard.
The members of the Appropriations Committee have had a longstanding
sense of cooperation, comity, and civility. There is always give and
take, live and let live, on both sides of the aisle. And that was the
same with regard to the Senate processing of this supplemental.
Everybody did not get everything he or she wanted in this supplemental,
but Members were treated fairly in a bipartisan manner.
However, when it came to processing the supplemental in conference,
several members were severely disappointed that the conference was
recessed subject to the call of the Chair. As a result, several
Senators were precluded from offering their motions and their
amendments.
A number of Members on this side of the aisle have expressed
disappointment that the conference did not have any open debate on the
immigration provisions, including the REAL ID legislation, that found
their way into the bill, and that neither the majority nor the minority
of the Senate Appropriations Committee participated in the formulation
of the REAL ID immigration provisions.
These REAL ID provisions were formulated behind closed doors by the
House and Senate Republican leadership. After the conference had
recessed subject to the call of the Chair, a 55-page modified version
of the REAL ID authorizing legislation was laid into the conference
report.
It was simply grafted onto the emergency supplemental appropriations
bill that provides funding for our military operations and our troops,
without debate or participation by the conferees. I do not fault the
chairman of the Appropriations Committee. This was not his doing. This
was done by the House and Senate Republican leadership.
The bill totals approximately $82 billion, which comes in at about $1
million below the request. Virtually the entire bill is designated as
an emergency, thus increasing the deficit.
Department of Defense totals $75.9 billion, $0.9 billion above the
request.
International assistance totals $4.1 billion, which is $1.5 billion
below the request, but it grew in conference to levels $866 million
more than the House and $42 million more than the Senate.
Border security funding totals $450 million of new emergency
spending. This compares to my conference motion to include $665 million
for border security. In order to increase the size of the border
security effort, staff identified $100 million of low priority homeland
security funds to use as offsets, bringing the total package to $550
million.
Despite having taken credit for improving security on our borders
when he signed the Intelligence Reform Act in December, the President
requested no actual funding for border security. My initiative, with
the support of Homeland Security Subcommittee Chairman Judd Gregg and
Senator Larry Craig, will result in 500 more Border Patrol agents, 218
new immigration investigators and detention officers, 1,950 more
detention beds, 170 support personnel, and funds for training and
housing the new personnel.
Many of the President's requests for expanded flexibilities were
substantially reduced in the Senate bill and sustained in conference.
The President's request for $5 billion transfer authority for Defense
Department funds contained in the supplemental bill was reduced to $3
billion.
In combination, under the conference report, the Secretary of Defense
has transfer authority in fiscal year 2005 of $10.7 billion, down from
a total of $14.7 billion requested.
The President's request for authority to spend contributions to the
Defense Cooperation Account in fiscal year 2005, without subsequent
approval by the Congress, was rejected as it should have been.
The President's request for a $200 million slush fund, entitled the
Global War on Terrorism, GWOT, Fund, under the control of Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice, was rejected as it should have been.
The President's request for a $200 million ``Solidarity Fund'' for
the Secretary of State, under Peacekeeping Operations, to reimburse
coalition partners--such as, Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Hungary, and
Bulgaria--for defense costs, was approved at a level of $230 million,
of which $30 million can be used for GWOT-type activities. However, the
act requires consultation and notification of the Congress prior to
using the money.
The conference report includes language that I authored prohibiting
executive branch agencies from creating prepackaged news stories unless
the agency clearly identifies that the story was created and funded by
an executive agency. It troubles me greatly that there has been a
proliferation of executive branch agencies creating so-called news
stories and then distributing them without identifying the story as
having been produced with the taxpayer's money. We trust the media to
provide us with independent sources of information, not biased news
stories produced by executive branch agencies, at whose expense,
taxpayer expense.
On February 17, 2005, the Government Accountability Office issued a
legal opinion to the executive agencies stating that such prepackaged
news stories violated the law. Regrettably, on March 11, 2005, the
Office of Management and Budget issued a memorandum to agency heads
specifically contradicting the opinion of the Government Accountability
Office.
This conference report ``confirms the opinion of the Government
Accountability Office dated February 17, 2005.'' I am pleased that the
conferees and now the Congress have agreed to this clear message that
taxpayer dollars should not be used to create prepackaged news stories
unless the story includes a clear message that the story was created by
a Federal agency and paid for by taxpayer dollars.
I was also pleased that the conferees agreed to my sense of the
Senate language on budgeting for the war in Iraq.
[[Page S4821]]
The conference report says that the President should submit a budget
amendment for fiscal year 2006 by September 1, 2005, and should include
funds in his fiscal year 2007 budget for the war when it is transmitted
in February.
Congress has now appropriated over $210 billion. That is $210 for
every minute since Jesus Christ was born. Think of that. Congress has
now appropriated over $210 billion in four different emergency
supplementals for the war in Iraq. That is a lot of money, and it is
your money, $210 billion. It is your money, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer, your
money. Two hundred ten billion dollars for the war in Iraq, and there
is no end in sight.
We should not continue to fund the war through ad hoc emergency
supplemental bills that are funneled through the Congress quickly when
our troops are running out of funding.
The conference report also includes my proposed 3-month extension of
the Abandoned Mines Land Program. Last fall, I offered, and the
Congress approved, a 9-month extension of the program in order to give
the authorizing committees time to act. Unfortunately, since last fall,
the authorizers have held no hearings and considered no bills on the
matter. So once again I urge the authorizing committees to approve this
legislation that is important to West Virginia and important to all
other coal-producing States.
Finally, I thank the staff on both sides of the aisle. On the
majority side, I thank Keith Kennedy, Clayton Heil, Les Spivey, Sid
Ashworth, Paul Grove, Rebecca Davies, and all of the others. On my own
side, the minority side, I thank that man from Notre Dame, our minority
staff director, Terry Sauvain. I thank his very able deputy, Charles
``Chuck'' Kieffer. These are two the likes of which you will never see
again. I also thank Charlie Houy, Tim Rieser, B.G. Wright, Chad
Schulken, and all of the others on the minority side who worked the
long hours--I mean long hours--to assist Senators in the production of
the final conference report.
Mr. President, there were some problems in conference, most notably
the recessing at the call of the Chair and not returning, which left
some of our members unable to offer motions. During the recess, 55
pages of modified REAL ID immigration legislation were inserted into
the conference report, sight unseen, by the conferees. Now, can you
imagine that? That would not have happened when I was chairman of the
Appropriations Committee. That would not have happened when I was
majority leader of the Senate. I will tell you, I don't blame our
chairman or any committee members for this situation, but I do
acknowledge that there were problems.
Nevertheless, the conference report provides the necessary funds for
our troops in the field in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. I will
always support money for our troops, may God bless them. I support
them. We must support our troops, our men and women. They didn't ask to
go there. They are doing their duty. They are answering the call. I do
not support the policies that sent them there. I did not support it in
the beginning. I did not vote to authorize this President or any other
President to use the military of this country as he might see fit. I
did not cast my vote there. I never, at any time, believed that Saddam
Hussein, for whom I did not carry any brief--or the country of Iraq
posed a national security threat to our country. I said so then, I say
it now, and I believe that. So I did not vote for the policies that
sent them there and keep them there. There is no end in sight. It
bleeds our country of money and blood. No, I don't support that policy,
and I didn't support it when the President sent our men and women
there. But I do support the troops. I support them and will always
support the troops of our country--may God bless them.
Nevertheless, the conference report, as I say, does provide the
necessary funds for our troops in the field in Iraq, Afghanistan, and
elsewhere. I supported the war in Afghanistan because there was al-
Qaida. Al-Qaida attacked us. Al-Qaida invaded our country when it
toppled the Twin Towers, and struck the Pentagon, and drove a plane
into the ground in Pennsylvania. I supported that war. But there are
two wars, the one in Afghanistan and the second war in Iraq--a country
which did not invade our country, a country which did not strike our
country, and a country which posed no security threat to our country.
But that is neither here nor there when it comes to our troops. That
is something else. We will support our troops. I thank the Chairman for
his excellent work, for his cooperation and fine leadership in our
Committee, and for his support of the troops likewise. I urge the
adoption of the conference report.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, as Senators know, there is time for
debate of the conference report, for Senators to come over and speak,
if they so choose, about the provisions of this bill and the effort we
have made to meet the challenge the President has laid before us, and
that is to produce a bill that provides funding for support for our
troops and other officials from the State Department and other agencies
who are engaged in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the global
war on terror. The majority of the money provided in this legislation
is for those purposes.
I am pleased the committee was able to restrain the temptation that
always exists to add money that was over and above the request made by
the President. The fact of the matter is that this committee showed
discipline and commitment to fiscal restraint. We brought a bill back
in the initial stages of this process that was below the request made
by the President and that was below the request provided in the House-
passed bill.
Our Senate Appropriations Committee reported legislation providing
funding that was lower than either one of those documents. In
conference with the House, we did resolve differences. There was give
and take. Both sides had their opportunity to speak. We met on two
separate occasions with our Senate conferees, joining representatives
from the House in a wide range of discussion. Nobody was cut off when
they wanted to discuss the issues or offer alternatives to provisions
of the House-passed bill. The REAL ID provision that has come up, which
some have complained about, was not a product of the Senate's action.
It was put into the bill on the House side, but it was in conference.
Because that legislation contained immigration issues and the
identification issue, there were those in the Senate who offered
germane amendments on the broad, general subject of immigration policy,
guest worker provisions, quotas, workers who could come from foreign
countries into the United States. The Senate will remember that we have
debated several amendments on those subjects. We approved some and we
rejected some.
In conference with the House, a majority of the conferees of the
Senate worked with a majority of the conferees in the House to get a
compromise conference report. That has been brought back to the House
now and passed by a substantially overwhelming margin, 368 to 40-
something, as I recall.
The Senate is prepared to wind up debate in a matter of an hour or
two, under the order that has been entered. I hope the Senate will give
support to this conference report and overwhelmingly approve it. It
reflects strict discipline in the appropriations process, but at the
same time it provides the funds needed for those who are engaged in the
important operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to safeguard the security
of our country and to promote democracy and help ensure a safer world.
I am hopeful the Senate will approve the conference report.
I am prepared to yield the floor. Seeing no Senator seeking
recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I was curious when I put in the
suggestion that a quorum be present as to how time would be charged
under the time that is being used now under the quorum call.
[[Page S4822]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The quorum call is charged to the Senator who
suggests the absence of a quorum.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, since there are no Senators on either
side present, I ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally
between both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COCHRAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I believe under the order the Senator from
Vermont has some time reserved.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, 15 minutes.
Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair. I will use part of it.
I am voting for the supplemental, but I have grave misgivings about
the President's policy in Iraq, the enormous strain it is putting on
our Armed Forces, the horrific toll of the insurgency on innocent
Iraqis, but especially the lack of a credible exit strategy.
We tried to get legislative language considered that would link the
training and equipping of Iraqi security forces to the phased
withdrawal of our troops. That made sense. As we train them and they
are able to take over responsibility for security, we should withdraw
our troops. The White House would not even consider this. I suspect had
the White House asked our troops in the field or the American people,
they would say that is what they want. It is also what most Iraqis
want.
I am voting for the supplemental because I am concerned about our
troops, many who were sent to fight and some of whom have died--as we
understand from the press, even though we could not get this from the
administration--without the proper armor. I opposed their deployment to
Iraq, and I want to see them return home as quickly as possible, but in
the meantime, I want them to have the best protection and equipment.
They were sent into harm's way by the order of the Commander in Chief,
and they should be protected as well as they can be.
There are other reasons I am voting for the supplemental, but I want
to mention one in particular. There is a provision which I sponsored
and Senators Boxer and Feinstein of California cosponsored which
designates the program to assist innocent Iraqi victims of the military
operations as the Marla Ruzicka Iraqi War Victims Fund.
This program, and one like it in Afghanistan, was inspired by Marla
Ruzicka of Lakeport, CA. She died on April 16, 2005, at the age of only
28, from a car bomb in Baghdad. Marla's colleague and friend, Faiz Ali
Salem, also died in that attack, both were on a mission of mercy.
I first met Marla 3 years ago. She worked closely with me and my
staff, especially Tim Rieser of my Appropriations Committee staff, from
the day after she arrived in Washington in 2002 until the day she died.
In fact, Tim received e-mails and photographs of her holding a child
she had helped that came in just hours before she was killed.
She was an extraordinarily courageous, determined young woman. She
brought hope and cheer to everyone she met, from our military to people
who were suffering from the ravages of the war. But she did it
especially for the families of Afghan and Iraqi civilians who were
killed or wounded as a result of the military operations. She felt
passionately that part of being an American is to acknowledge those who
have suffered and help their families piece their lives back together.
Who would not agree with that? By showing them a compassionate face
of America, she not only gave them hope, she helped overcome some of
the anger and resentment many felt toward our great country.
Over 90 percent of the casualties of World War I were soldiers. That
changed in World War II. And since then, it is overwhelmingly civilians
who suffer the casualties.
Rosters are kept of the fallen soldiers, as they should be, but no
official record is kept or made public of the civilians who died. That
is wrong. It denies those victims the dignity of being counted, the
respect of being honored, and it also prevents their families from
receiving the help they need.
In her young life, Marla forced us to face the consequences of our
actions in ways that few others have. Even more importantly, she made
us do something about it. She brought both parties in this Chamber
together to help. What she did in Afghanistan and Iraq by the time she
was 28, the end of her short life, was an achievement of a lifetime,
far more than most people do in a much longer life.
This Saturday, from 2 to 4 in the afternoon, I am going to host a
gathering in the Senate caucus room in the Russell Building so that
anyone who is interested can learn more about Marla's work and the U.S.
Government programs she inspired. I hope we can discuss ways for all of
us to continue the campaign on behalf of innocent victims of conflict.
I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for supporting
naming this program after her. I want the work she started to continue.
I doubt that we will see another person quite so remarkable as Marla,
but I have to think there are a lot of other Americans who would want
help if we give them the support they need.
I see the distinguished Senator from Connecticut in the Chamber. I
reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor to him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to support the supplemental
appropriations bill. I do so because it supports the men and women of
the American military, in my opinion the greatest fighting force in the
history of the world. I say that, really having thought about it. It
supports them in their efforts to advance the cause of freedom and to
protect the security of every American by what they are doing to fight
terrorism and terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I do want to note, however, my strong objections to House provisions
known as the REAL ID Act that have been included in the conference
report. The REAL ID Act will repeal ID security provisions enacted with
overwhelming bipartisan support last year at the urging of the 9/11
Commission and place them with rigid and unworkable Federal mandates on
State government for the issuance of driver's licenses, long
exclusively a matter of State law.
The conference report from the House also includes punitive
immigration provisions we rejected last year and that have no place on
an emergency spending bill. In my opinion, our Nation is safer if we
continue to implement the protections we passed last December rather
than allow an ideological debate over immigration policy to derail
those initiatives so vital to the war against terrorism.
Notwithstanding my strong objections to the REAL ID components of the
conference report, I strongly support the report and I do so based
particularly on a visit I was able to make last week to Iraq, the third
I have been privileged to make in the last 10 months. I am back feeling
we are at a tipping point and it is moving in the right direction in
Iraq. It requires the sustained, strong, and visible American support
that is expressed in this supplemental appropriations.
There is no doubt that the recent spate of suicide bombings has
riveted the media's attention and as a result the attention of the
American people, but I assure my colleagues those suicide bombings and
those suicide bombers are a small, though devastating, part of life in
Iraq today. They have got to be understood in context.
I come back from Iraq seeing it this way: There are more than 25
million people in Iraq. Eight million of them came out in the face of
terrorist threats to vote for self-governance on January 30 of this
year. They have stood up a government which is impressive and
inclusive. Their military is gaining strength and self-sufficiency
every day. There are 25 million on one side wanting to live a better,
freer life. On the other side are the insurgents, the terrorists, the
enemy, variously estimated at 10,000 to 12,000, some would say less.
[[Page S4823]]
For as long as I can remember as a member of the Senate Armed
Services Committee in briefings we have received and on previous trips
to Iraq when I have asked who are these insurgents, every other time I
have been told most of them are former regime elements, leftovers from
Saddam Hussein who want to go back into power and stop this new
government, particularly a government which represents the majority of
people in Iraq, Shi'a Muslims, to take power.
Then I was always told a minority is terrorists who are people
associated with Zarqawi and al-Qaida. This time it began to turn around
and that is a very significant development.
I was informed that the number of former regime elements, the number
of Iraqi Sunni Muslims involved in the insurgency, is dropping. In
fact, some of them have begun to reach out to come over to the other
side because they see the future tipping in another direction. However,
there is an increase in the movement into Iraq of foreign terrorists.
Sometimes they are people recruited over the Internet, recruited at
religious sites, coming into Iraq usually from Syria for as short as a
day before they are strapped with bombs, sent in a vehicle aimed at a
crowd of Iraqis in a marketplace, sent to be in a line of Iraqis ready
to enlist in the Iraqi military or in the police force, who then blow
themselves up.
What I am saying is there is a historic transformation going on in
Iraq that already has and, if it can continue to go with our support,
will resonate throughout the Arab world. I know that as the American
people every night see only the suicide bombings, they begin to lose
hope about what is happening in Iraq. I appeal to the American people
to understand that those bombings, as devastating as they are, are the
result of the fanatical work of a minority of people, the same people
who attacked us on September 11, 2001--same attitude, same mindset,
same hatred. If we diminish our support for our presence in Iraq today
for the Iraqis who want so desperately to find a better life and govern
themselves, we will have lost a moment of historic opportunity and we
will ultimately pay the price for it ourselves.
I had the opportunity to meet with the new leadership of Iraq, the
new President of Iraq, Jalal Talabani, a Kurdish leader for decades,
who many of us have met and come to know, a good man, a strong man. I
sat with him and realized this is the duly elected successor to the
brutal, murdering dictator Saddam Hussein. It is a miracle, something
that neither he nor I, nor most of us, and particularly the Iraqi
people, could have imagined just a few years ago. President Talabani
deserves our support.
I met with the new Prime Minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari. I never met
him before. He is a good man. I found him to be thoughtful, strong,
clear, very religious, very inclusive. Neither the Shi'a nor the Kurds
who suffered terribly under Saddam--and one might understand the human
instinct for revenge--have yielded to it. They have reached out to the
Sunnis. We have not seen it in the papers and on the TV, but they are
reaching out to bring them into the Government to try to create a
leadership by consensus that will assure a better future for the Iraqi
people.
I want to say a final word about the American military. As I said at
the outset, it is the finest in the world. It deserves our support. The
election, the negotiations with the Sunnis, the increasing capability
of the Iraqi military, all bring Iraq to a tipping point in the right
direction. It is historic. The American military understands what is
going on. I had the privilege, over the last 16 years, to visit many of
our men and women in uniform around the world. I have never seen our
military more proud of what they are doing, with morale higher, more
skillful, better equipped to carry out the mission than they are
carrying out. This bill helps them to do what we have asked them to do.
I want to say, finally, that we have to exploit this moment, this
tipping point, and act aggressively with the Iraqi government to bring
over more of the insurgents, thus isolating the foreign fighters, the
terrorists, the al-Qaida/Zarqawi network people, and making it harder
for them to move freely and resupply themselves.
This has really now become quite explicitly a war against the
terrorist movement that struck us on September 11, 2001. That, to me,
means moving aggressively to close the border with Syria to stop the
flow of terrorists, and further help bring stability to Iraq. Operation
Matador, now in its third day in Iraq near the Syrian border, is the
kind of sustained military effort we need. Our pride, our prayers, our
gratitude go out to the Marines and others in the American military who
have advanced Operation Matador with such remarkable success.
Our engagement in Iraq is crucial. It is in the best bipartisan
traditions of American foreign policy that run from Woodrow Wilson to
George W. Bush, with a lot of good Democratic and Republican Presidents
in between. This supplemental supports that policy. It advances the
cause of freedom. It protects American security. It supports the
American men and women who are performing so valiantly and
constructively. I urge its adoption. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I will cast my vote in support of
the conference report on the 2005 supplemental appropriations 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. 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. But the fact
remains that our troops on the ground need timely support, and I will
cast my vote to see that they get it, and the victims of the horrifying
2004 tsunami in South and Southeast Asia are provided with some
meaningful relief and assistance.
I am pleased that the conferees retained my amendment to make it
easier for the families of injured servicemembers to travel to the
bedsides of their loved ones. I am disappointed that a sunset provision
was added to this common-sense measure, and I will continue fighting to
ensure that the benefits to military families provided by my amendment
become permanent.
My vote in support of this conference report also comes with serious
reservations because it contains the extremely troublesome immigration
and driver's license provisions of the REAL ID Act, which the House
passed as an amendment to this bill.
I strongly support efforts to curb illegal immigration and to prevent
terrorists from entering our country to do harm. But as we work to
secure our borders and protect our Nation from future terrorist
attacks, we must also respect the need for refugees, foreign workers,
family members, students, businesspeople, visitors, and others who wish
to come to our Nation legally.
The REAL ID Act is a big step in the wrong direction. The new
restrictions on immigration in the REAL ID Act are not necessary to
protect national security. Rather, they will only serve to create
serious and unjustified hardships for people fleeing persecution and
for other non-citizens.
Not only that, but the Senate has had no opportunity to consider the
REAL ID Act. It is astounding that Congress would enact these
significant immigration changes without the United States Senate ever
having held a hearing on them, without the Judiciary Committee ever
having considered them, and without Senators ever having taken a vote
specifically on those reforms or having had an opportunity to offer
amendments. Obviously these issues are too important to address them in
such a truncated way. Congressional leaders have no business tacking
these very significant and controversial changes to immigration law
onto an unrelated, must-pass appropriations bill. Clearly, this process
was used because these changes could not pass the Senate on their own
merit. They had to be added to legislation that contains vital funding
for our troops in Iraq.
What has happened to the legislative process? I know that some in the
other body, and some in the Senate as well, have very strong feelings
about these immigration provisions. But strong feelings do not justify
abusing the
[[Page S4824]]
power of the majority and the legislative process in this way. I
strongly object to this tactic.
Let me explain a few of my concerns with the REAL ID Act. First, this
conference report will make it even harder for those fleeing
persecution to seek asylum in this country. These changes to asylum law
are simply unnecessary. As any attorney who handles asylum cases can
tell you, asylum cases are already extremely difficult to prove. In
fact, only about 30 percent of asylum applications are granted today.
Those seeking asylum in the United States already undergo the highest
level of security checks of all foreign nationals who enter this
country, and the provisions in this bill will result, I am sure, in the
rejection of legitimate applications without making us any safer.
The asylum provisions of the REAL ID Act were improved somewhat in
conference, and I greatly appreciate the work Senator Brownback did to
make changes to the House-passed version. But the changes do not go far
enough to adequately protect asylum seekers. This bill will have real
effects on real people--people who will be sent back to countries where
they or their families may be harmed or even killed because of their
political or religious beliefs.
There are also provisions in this bill that would further restrict
judicial review in immigration proceedings. This is not the time to
downgrade the judicial branch's longstanding role as a check on the
abuse of executive branch power, particularly in light of some of the
administration's unprecedented actions since September 11, 2001. Non-
citizens have borne the burden of many of the administration's
egregious civil liberties violations that have occurred since September
11. I believe that we can fight terrorism without compromising our
civil liberties. Making it harder for non-citizens to seek judicial
review in immigration proceedings is sending exactly the wrong message
about the need to respect the Constitution and basic human rights.
The REAL ID provisions in the conference report also have potentially
serious environmental implications. One section of the conference
report allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive all laws that
he deems necessary to allow expeditious construction of barriers at the
border. Let me repeat that: The Secretary can waive any and all laws
that he wishes in order to construct these barriers. I guess that could
include labor and safety laws, but certainly it means that
environmental regulations can be waived, at the sole discretion of the
Secretary.
I also want to address the driver's license title of the conference
report. This title of the REAL ID Act is particularly unfortunate
because it repeals provisions of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act, which we just passed a few months ago, and replaces
them with the unworkable mandates that Congress rejected when debating
the intelligence reform legislation. The intelligence reform bill
required a negotiated rulemaking process to develop minimum
identification standards, a process that is already under way and has
included State governments, the Departments of Homeland Security and
Transportation, law enforcement, industry representatives, privacy
advocates, and immigration groups.
They all had a seat at the table under the intelligence reform bill.
In fact, they met for 3 full days just a few weeks ago. This process
would have, in all likelihood, resulted in sensible, realistic
standards for driver's licenses to improve security.
Instead, the REAL ID Act mandates a long list of expensive and
inflexible requirements for the states, some of which could have
serious unintended consequences.
Let me give you an example that demonstrates why we should not be
rushing these provisions into law. A variety of States, either by law
or policy, have address confidentiality programs that permit law
enforcement officers, judges, or domestic violence victims to list
something other than their home address on the face of their driver's
license. They are required to provide their home address to the DMV,
but it is not actually printed on the license. This is an important
security measure to protect public officials and victims of violence
from individuals who wish to do them harm.
The REAL ID Act would override these protections by mandating that a
person's home address be printed on the face of the driver's license
itself. Had the Senate Judiciary Committee had an opportunity to review
this bill, I feel confident we could have addressed this issue in a
more nuanced way, and certainly the process now underway that this bill
will short-circuit would have taken into account the legitimate public
safety interest allowing some people to not list their actual
addresses.
The intelligence reform bill struck the right balance by setting up a
mechanism to help improve the security of State identification cards,
while also ensuring that States and other interested parties would have
input into the process of determining minimum identification standards.
I am very disappointed that the REAL ID Act is overriding this ongoing
process with costly and unrealistic requirements that leave States with
little discretion.
On top of all this, the REAL ID Act prohibits the issuance of State
driver's licenses to undocumented aliens. States should be the ones to
decide whether, in the interests of public safety, they wish to issue
driver's licenses to undocumented aliens. The reality is, there are
millions of undocumented workers in the Nation. States could reasonably
decide, just as Wisconsin has, that from a law enforcement and public
safety perspective it is better to ensure that these individuals have
been tested on their driving skills, have obtained insurance, and are
readily identifiable, rather than to force them to drive illegally.
While I am extremely concerned about the effects these REAL ID
provisions are going to have on noncitizens and on already cash-
strapped State governments, I do want to note one bright stop in the
immigration landscape of this bill. That is the provision that
addresses the shortage of H-2B visas for temporary, seasonal workers.
The cap for H-2B visas was reached just 3 months into the 2005 fiscal
year, in January, which meant that employers in Northern States, such
as Wisconsin whose tourism, landscaping, and other seasonal industries
get started later in the year, have been unable to hire workers using
H-2B visas.
Senator Mikulski and Senator Gregg worked tirelessly to ensure that
this provision was enacted into law in time to help employers who need
workers this year, and I do commend them for their efforts. I have been
proud to cosponsor their H-2B legislation, and I am very pleased this
is about to become law. Unlike the REAL ID bill, this provision had
overwhelming bipartisan support in the Senate and quick congressional
action was definitely needed.
Mr. President, I will vote for this legislation because our Armed
Forces need the funds it provides, but I strongly object to the
inclusion of the REAL ID Act in the conference report. Those who
support these provisions have prevailed only because they were willing
to upend the legislative process to achieve their ends. I certainly
regret that, and I think many of us will come to regret that.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to briefly discuss the
conference report to the emergency supplemental appropriations bill,
which we hope to adopt later today.
First, I thank my colleague from Mississippi, Senator Cochran, for
the good work he has done. I plan to support adoption of this
conference report. There are certainly a number of programs that will
benefit greatly from passage of this bill. It is the right thing to do.
I must say, though, there are a few areas, which I will discuss in a
moment, where I do not think we have gone quite far enough.
First, let's talk about the most important thing. Of course, that is
the money that will go to support our soldiers. That is really why we
are here. That is the most important provision in the bill. Let me talk
about a couple of specific items that will aid our soldiers.
This bill includes Senator Craig's amendment, which I cosponsored, to
provide an immediate payment--it ranges from $25,000 to $100,000--to
those who have suffered traumatic injuries
[[Page S4825]]
on active duty, such as the loss of an arm or leg or the loss of their
hearing or sight.
The bill also includes my second-degree amendment to Senator Craig's
amendment making this provision retroactive to October 7, 2001. This
second-degree amendment I offered will ensure the coverage of soldiers
who have been injured in Iraq, injured in Afghanistan, those soldiers
who many of us have seen or talked to who are currently recuperating at
Walter Reed, Bethesda, or other hospitals around our Nation, as well as
those who have left the hospital and are learning to live with their
injuries.
This amendment would help service members, such as Army SSG Justin
Shellhammer, whom I spoke to today on the phone. Justin Shellhammer is
a courageous young man, someone of whom we can all be very proud. I
talked to him on the phone this morning. He is excited he is going to
get a leg this afternoon. He told me about how his recuperation has
been coming along and what his prospects are. When you talk to someone
like him, your heart goes out to him. But, frankly, you feel great
admiration for him and how courageous he is.
I am also pleased this bill includes an additional $150 million for
the procurement of up-armored humvees. Many of us on the Senate floor
and in the House have supported, for a long period of time, increases
in funding for this program. It is an important program. There is a
critical need for these vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan and here in
the United States where they are used for training.
Quite simply, these vehicles have saved the lives of hundreds if not
thousands of service men and women and enabled them to complete their
mission.
Just a few moments ago, I talked about the fact that there are some
items that should have been included in the bill that are not. I am,
frankly, a little disappointed.
The conference report does not provide the death gratuity increase
that we provided to all Active-Duty deaths. This bill increases the
death gratuity to $100,000--and that is a very good thing--to the
families of those who have died in service to our country. But the
language in the bill that came out of conference provides only for
deaths that occur in a combat zone or those that are ``combat-
related.'' I think that is much too narrow. I think it is a shame. I
think it is too bad that is what the conference did.
If we do not apply the death gratuity increase to all Active-Duty
deaths--which is what we should have done--we will not be covering a
number of individuals who die while carrying out their orders, who die
in service to our country. Their families will not be covered. For
example, we will not cover the family of a service member who gets into
a fatal car accident carrying out very specific orders to deliver files
from one side of his home base to another, in service to his country.
His family will not get that death benefit.
We also will not cover the death of a service member who gets into a
fatal accident en route to a conference he or she was ordered to
attend. And it will not even cover a military police officer guarding
the gates of one of our domestic bases who may fall from heat stroke. I
do not think that is right. I think that was a mistake the conference
made.
As I have done since the beginning of this Congress, I will continue,
as I know others will, to work to expand the applicability of this
critical benefit.
I must say, I was also disappointed that we were unable to pass an
extended TRICARE Prime medical benefit for children of decreased
service members. Under current law, the dependent child of a deceased
service member receives medical benefits under TRICARE Prime for 3
years at no cost. But following that period, the dependent children may
continue to receive TRICARE Prime, but they must pay for that benefit
at the retiree dependent premium rate, available to children under the
age of 21 or 23 if they are enrolled in school. Also, after 3 years,
when a dependent child's military parent dies, and if that family
elects to pay the premium and stay enrolled, even if they pay that
premium, that child would move down on the food chain, so to speak, in
terms of the availability of services and priority. I do not think that
is right. I think we need to correct that.
What that means is that if there is a doctor's appointment opening,
and your parent is alive, and your parent is continuing to serve, you
get preference over a child whose parent was killed in Iraq or
Afghanistan. Now, do we really think that is right? I do not think so.
I do not think there is any person on this floor or in the Senate who
would say that is right.
This is simply not fair. I don't think any Member of the Senate who
really understands this would say that is right. My amendment, which
was not included in this bill, would have changed that by putting
surviving children of service members killed in service in the same
position--no better but no worse--as if their parent would have lived
and continued to serve in the military. It would have put them in no
better position but, rather, in the same position, and they would
continue to receive TRICARE Prime at no cost until they became an
adult.
I wish to let my colleagues know that I plan to continue this debate
and to try to get this in the Defense authorization bill. This is a
matter of simple fairness. It is the right thing to do. So this
discussion will continue this week and in the weeks ahead.
Let me turn to another topic that this bill addresses, and that is
humanitarian assistance. I believe we did a pretty good job in this
bill--again, I congratulate the chairman--as many essential priorities
were funded. Because of what the chairman did and what others did, many
people will be fed, many people will be helped maybe not at the level I
would have liked in some cases, but we did a pretty good job.
One country that certainly needs assistance in this supplemental is
Haiti. Haiti is embarking on a road to attempt to move toward
democracy. They have had a very troubled past, a troubled present. Its
current history is troubled. They are facing elections this year.
I thank Chairman Cochran and Senator Bingaman, Chairman McConnell,
and all the conferees who supported my efforts to include emergency
money for Haiti. Haiti needs election assistance and security. This
bill provides $20 million for election assistance this year, for police
training and for public works programs. All this money is urgently
needed. I will be working closely with the U.S. Agency for
International Development to ensure this money flows quickly into
Haiti.
Another troubled spot in this world is Darfur. Again, I congratulate
the chairman for his work. Senator Corzine offered an amendment.
Senator Corzine has been a true champion in this area. I congratulate
him. He offered an amendment, of which I was the lead cosponsor,
regarding Darfur. I thank him for his efforts and commitment to helping
end the crisis in the region. The final conference report provides $50
million to support the African Union to stop the genocide in Darfur.
Again, I thank Senator McConnell and Senator Leahy for their good work
in this area as well.
The conference report also provides an additional $90 million for
international disaster and family assistance to help ensure
humanitarian aid flows to Darfur and other African crises. We are
looking at genocide in Darfur. We are staring it down, and we cannot
afford to blink. It is only right that this bill contains funding for
this crisis.
Finally, I thank Senator Kohl for his efforts to help increase our
U.S. food aid. I worked with Senator Kohl. I was his lead cosponsor on
his amendment, which the Senate passed, to include $470 million in food
aid to cover known worldwide aid shortages. Again, I thank Senator
Cochran for his good work in this area.
The conference report, unfortunately, contains only $240 million.
This money will help, but it is not at the level the Senate had
provided. This is not enough to cover existing shortfalls, much less
new emergencies or worsening conditions in places such as Ethiopia.
Last year, 300,000 children in Ethiopia died of malnutrition. This
year, the situation is worse, with drought destroying crops in large
parts of the country. The people of Ethiopia will avoid the starvation
that is on the horizon only if we act. That means remaining open to the
possibility of
[[Page S4826]]
using the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust and other tools in our food
aid arsenal. We must understand that it is not only Ethiopia where we
have a crisis; we have crises all over the world with regard to food
aid. We simply do not have enough food.
I am proud to be joining Senator Kohl in sending a letter to the
President asking him to look at the Bill Emerson Trust as we enter the
summer season that so often results in food shortages, not just in
Ethiopia but around the world. I again commend Senator Kohl for his
commitment to end hunger around the world.
There are good parts to the conference report we are passing today.
It provides immediate and necessary help that our soldiers need to do
their job. It provides our injured service men and women with care that
they desperately need. It provides money for Haiti and Darfur, other
African crises. However, frankly, we could have done more. Legislation,
though, is never perfect. We simply need to continue to work together
to address issues that are not fixed in this legislation.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that under the
previous order, I will be recognized for up to 1 hour.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct, of which 10 minutes will be
yielded to the Senator from Washington.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from
Washington, Mrs. Murray.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the supplemental
appropriations bill we are considering which funds our military
activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Overall, I support this bill. We do
need to get the money out to our troops. But I am here today because I
have several concerns about what it leaves out and how it was put
together.
I have to say I am particularly troubled that I and other Senators
were denied a promised opportunity to debate and vote on some very
controversial immigration changes that have been attached to this bill.
First, let me say, I know how important the funding is to our troops
overseas. In March, I traveled with the Senator from Illinois and
several others on a bipartisan trip to Iraq and met with troops from
the State of Washington. To a person, each of them was a dedicated
professional who was putting duty above their personal well-being. They
need our support, and they deserve every resource our grateful Nation
can provide.
As I have said before, I am the daughter of a disabled World War II
veteran. I represent hundreds of thousands of Washington State veterans
and military families. I support every dollar in this aid bill to help
our troops protect themselves and complete successfully the dangerous
mission we have assigned them. But I am concerned that when all of
these new veterans come home and need medical care, they are going to
be pushed into a VA system that does not have medical staff,
facilities, or the funding needed to care for them. That is exactly why
I was on the Senate floor fighting to include within the supplemental
the critical cost of war, and that is taking care of our Nation's
veterans.
I am disappointed that Republicans in the Senate have decided that
funding for veterans care is not an emergency and not a priority. By
denying that there is a crisis at the VA, they are simply ignoring our
responsibility to fully provide for the men and women who are risking
their lives for our freedom. Our veterans, our military, and our future
recruits deserve better. Taking care of our veterans is part of the
cost of having a great military. It is a real disservice that we have
not taken care of that funding within this bill.
I am here today because I am also very troubled by how far-reaching
and unrelated immigration rules got attached to this bill without a
vote and without an opportunity to debate. The REAL ID provision has
ramifications for privacy, for States rights, and for immigration
policy. I am disappointed that it has been rammed through as an
attachment to a desperately needed bill that funds our troops. Frankly,
a lot of us are kind of scratching our heads about how this REAL ID
provision ended up in this conference report. I know I didn't vote for
it. I know there wasn't even a discussion of it in conference, but
somehow it is included in a must-pass bill.
Mr. President, I served on the conference committee, and I want to
share with my colleagues exactly what happened in that conference
committee so they will understand why the sudden appearance of the REAL
ID provision is so surprising to many of us.
When the conference committee met, the chairman gave assurances to
the minority that we would be able to vote on several provisions when
the conference met again. But that conference never met again, leaving
no opportunity for the minority party to vote, much less to strike
these provisions.
I want to share with the Senate the specifics. In our second meeting
of the conference committee, Senator Durbin, who is now on the Senate
floor, asked Chairman Cochran for his assurance that we would get a
chance to vote on these immigration changes, and other open items as
well, before the supplemental was sent to the floor.
In fact, I want to read a portion of the transcript of that meeting.
This discussion took place on Thursday, April 28.
Senator Durbin said:
I would also like to say to my colleagues, if this bill
contains--as I believe it does--the REAL ID Act, I would like
a vote on that so that we can be on the record on an issue
that has never been brought before committee in the Senate.
My question to you is this, Mr. Chairman: There have been
times when conference committees of this magnitude have
recessed and never been heard from again. The next thing we
find is a conference committee report on the floor on a take
it or leave it basis.
Can we have your assurance that we will return for votes on
amendments such as those we have debated today and those that
I have mentioned?
Senator Cochran's response to Senator Durbin:
Senator, I would be glad to make the assurance that if
there is work to be done, if there are open items to be
considered, that we can consider those in conference. I am
not prepared to make a commitment as to when that will be. I
don't want to lead you to believe that I am going to
surreptitiously or in secret reach an agreement on the other
side without consulting all the conferees on the Senate side.
I think everyone in this conference has a right to
participate in this discussion and I wouldn't want to cut off
anybody's right to participate.
Mr. President, I have worked closely with Senator Cochran for many
years, and I do know him to be a man of his word. But to me, what that
exchange meant, sitting there in that conference, was that we would
have an opportunity to vote on the REAL ID provision, but that never
happened. To me, that was wrong.
The REAL ID provision will have dramatic and far-reaching changes and
puts an unfunded mandate on many States. Yet it was never brought
before a Senate committee, and it was never voted on in the conference.
That is exactly why I did not sign the final conference report, which
is very unusual for me. I did not sign it because I believe the process
was flawed and we were denied an opportunity to debate and discuss
these immigration changes before they were brought to the floor as part
of a must-pass bill.
Mr. President, we are all very concerned about security, but this
received very little debate. Before Congress mandates these kinds of
changes, we should have a more informed debate. In fact, it begs the
question, why was this added to a must-pass bill without a debate?
Probably because it could not withstand a rigorous and open public
debate. We should have that, and I am disappointed that the majority
denied us that opportunity.
I also want to note today the irony that the Senate is about to allow
a technical fix to immigration-related language that was included in
the supplemental, which I agree needs to be fixed; but the Democrats in
the conference committee were not provided any opportunity to fix any
other immigration provision.
I want to reiterate my frustration with how the REAL ID Act was
included and that we were not given the same consideration regarding
that language.
Mr. President, the REAL ID provision has some unique impacts for my
[[Page S4827]]
home State. This section on immigration is particularly troubling to me
because Washington State has proactively enacted several laws to
protect the privacy of Washington State residents.
While I understand the needs for increased security, I don't think
Washington State laws should be completely overridden by this
provision, especially without ever having had the chance for debate and
discussion on it.
We know this bill is going to pass. Our troops need the funding it
includes. I am already working with communities and officials across
Washington State to help find a way to implement these new
requirements. I will continue, once this is passed, to push the
administration to now provide the funding necessary to make these
changes without piling new burdens onto our already cash-strapped
State.
Mr. President, it is really unfortunate that at a time when we should
be focusing on the needs of our troops and our veterans, the majority
party is using the supplemental aid bill as a vehicle to legislate on
subjects that have not received the debate and attention they deserve.
But at the end of the day, we know we cannot afford to fail in our
missions abroad. With hundreds of thousands of troops sacrificing every
day in Iraq and Afghanistan, I will support this supplemental bill, and
I will continue to work to fight for their care as they return home.
I thank my colleague from Illinois for yielding me time and allowing
me to express my frustration on how this part of the bill was put in
without anybody able to discuss it in conference committee.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip is recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for her statement with
which I agree. This is called an emergency supplemental. It is the
nature of an emergency supplemental that it funds things that were
unanticipated, such as natural disasters and military operations that
we didn't anticipate. That is the nature of an emergency supplemental.
Yet, when you look at it, at the real nature of this bill, there is no
emergency or unexpected element here. This is funding the third year of
a war in Iraq.
Did we expect to be gone from Iraq by this time? I don't think
anybody suggested that. Yet the administration continues to bring the
funding of our troops into the Congress on an emergency basis. Why
would they do that? Why would they not put it through the ordinary
appropriations process? There are two good reasons. First, it isn't
added to the national debt each year. The President can say, when he
presents his budget, that we are close to being in balance. In fact, we
are not even close. We have the largest deficit in the history of the
United States of America under the Bush administration. You have to add
this to it. This is a real cost to the American taxpayers, to our
Government. But by putting it in separately, it is a little sleight of
hand, so that you don't add the $81 billion to the actual cost.
Secondly, if this went through the ordinary appropriations process,
there would be hearings and questions would be raised--questions I
would like to raise after I visited Iraq with the Senator from
Washington. Why, in a third year of the war, are we still trying to
find armor plating for humvees and trucks to protect our troops? Why,
in the third year of the war, after giving every dollar the
administration asked for, don't we have protective body armor for all
of our soldiers? Why, in the third year of the war, don't we have the
most modern helmets and firearms that our troops need to be safe, to
perform their mission and come home?
Hard questions. I might also like to ask a few questions about some
of the major contractors who are being paid for this war. Millions, if
not billions, of dollars are going to companies on no-bid contracts.
You know the names. Halliburton leads the list. I will tell you this.
It is considered entirely inappropriate in Congress to raise the
question about whether Halliburton has been paid too much or
improperly. You just don't ask those questions around here. Those are
things which Congress has no business asking about, according to the
Republican majority. Those are questions that would be asked if this
appropriations bid went through the regular process.
Instead, it comes to us as an emergency. We don't have time to talk
about it or to ask any questions. They say: Come on now, the troops are
at risk. Let's pass the bill and get it over with.
That is what we face every year. The majority knows that even those
of us who voted against the use of force resolution for the invasion of
Iraq have said we are going to vote for the money for the troops. If it
were my son or daughter, my brother, or someone in my family whose life
is at risk in Iraq, whether I agree with the way we went into the war
is irrelevant. I am going to give those soldiers, marines, and our
other Armed Forces every penny they need to perform their mission and
come home safely. We can debate the policy and whether we are going to
make the mistake we made in Vietnam, where our policy debate turned
into a debate at the expense of our troops. And so the administration
and the Republican majority take advantage of it. They pushed this bill
through on a take-it-or-leave-it emergency basis, and they say do not
ask any hard questions. We do not want to talk about armor for humvees.
We do not want to talk about Halliburton. Take it or leave it.
That is sad. Yet in their hurry to bring this bill to the floor, they
load it up with things that are not related to the war in Iraq. We
heard what the Senator from Washington said. There is a major change in
the law in this bill about the issuance of driver's licenses in the
United States of America. Why in the world is that in this bill, the
emergency bill for the troops? I think she has made it clear.
Let me give a little background. If we were fair, we would not call
this the emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year
ending September 30; we would call this the Larry Lindsey memorial
bill. Why? Because Larry Lindsey happened to be the Budget Director
under President Bush who made a big mistake. When we invaded Iraq, Mr.
Lindsey predicted the war would cost somewhere between $100 billion and
$200 billion. Mr. Lindsey was dismissed from his job as a result of
suggesting the war might cost that much money.
And remember Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz? They asked him:
How will we pay for the war in Iraq? He assured us in open testimony
that Iraqi oil money would pay for the reconstruction, and at one
remarkable Senate hearing, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld even
predicted Iraqi tourism dollars would help finance the new Iraq.
Fast forward to today. With the Senate's passage this week of this
bill, American taxpayers would have committed nearly $300 billion for
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are still waiting for that tourism
money, we are still waiting for that Iraqi oil money, and Mr. Lindsey
is now in civilian life for suggesting the war might cost a third of
what it has actually cost.
That is the reality, and there is no end in sight. We are not going
to delay passage of this bill; there is too much at stake. Mr.
President, 150,000 American soldiers rely on our prompt action on this
bill, and it will pass here today, as it should.
Let me speak about some elements of this bill I think should be part
of the record. Democrats are going to support this bill not only
because it helps the troops, because it does fund some true
emergencies. There is $900 million in emergency relief for the victims
of the South Asia tsunami, one of the greatest natural disasters in
modern memory, and $400 million for humanitarian assistance in the
Darfur region of Sudan. If this genocide in Darfur is not an emergency,
what is? Unfortunately, what is missing from Darfur accountability
passed by the Senate is seeking justice and security for the victims of
this campaign of murder, rape, and destruction.
I am also going to vote for this bill because it does include a
provision which I added on the Senate floor reaffirming America's
commitment to not engage in torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman,
or degrading treatment of prisoners of war or other detainees. I
believe reaffirming this longstanding American commitment to this
fundamental standard of international law and decency will help restore
our credibility and our moral
[[Page S4828]]
standing in a world which questions what happened at Abu Ghraib and
Guantanamo. As many military experts have told us, it will also reduce
the chance that American military personnel, when captured, would be
tortured.
The bill contains $5.7 billion to train Iraqi troops. Six or 7 weeks
ago when I was in Baghdad, they showed us a handful, a dozen of these
troops who were in an exercise. I am not a military expert. I do not
know if they were real soldiers. I do not know if they were really
trained, but thank goodness there is some effort underway to try to
replace American soldiers with Iraqi soldiers.
It also contains crucial requirements that progress and training be
monitored and measured, language Senator Kennedy, Senator Levin,
Senator Byrd, and I worked hard to preserve. It is not enough for high-
ranking administration officials to assure us that 130,000 Iraqi troops
have been trained when only a small fraction are actually ready to
fight, or when tens of thousands of U.S.-trained Iraqi police officers
have gone AWOL. We cannot find them. Knowing how many Iraqi troops are
ready to defend the nation will give us a better idea of when we can
bring our troops home, and the sooner the better.
I thank the chairman and ranking member for working with us on the
troop training and torture amendments, some of the reasons I will vote
for this bill.
The final conference report does include other issues that trouble me
when it comes to our troops. I have been trying for almost 3 years to
make certain that Federal Government employees who are members of the
Guard and Reserve and who are activated to serve overseas do not find
themselves facing extraordinary financial hardships. In the Pentagon,
we go to businesses across America and say: If you want to be a
patriotic business, if you want to show your love of America, show your
love for the men in the Guard and Reserve, and the women as well, and
if they are activated, help their families; cover them with health
insurance, if you can; make up the difference in pay, if you can. And
many of them have stepped forward and said: We are going to do it. In
fact, almost 1,000 different corporations and units of government--
State and local--have said we are going to stand behind those Guard and
Reserve families. They are making enough of a sacrifice, they are
putting their lives on the line, and we will stand behind the families
who stay home so that soldier, worried about his life, does not have
to worry about the mortgage payment. We even have a Web site sponsored
by our Federal Government saluting these great companies for standing
behind our Guard and Reserve, as we should.
But let me let you in on a secret. There is one major employer in
America that refuses to stand behind the Guard and Reserve. There is
one major employer that employs 10 percent of the Guard and Reserve in
America, 1 out of 10, that refuses to make up the difference in pay.
Who could that employer be? It is the U.S. Government.
The Federal Government refuses to make up the difference in pay for
these soldiers and marines in our country. How can we possibly explain
that? We are praising companies and other governments that stand behind
their people while we fail to do the same.
So on three different occasions, I offered an amendment on the floor,
and it was adopted, which said we will stand behind the Guard and
Reserve. We will make up the difference in pay, just as other companies
do. Take a look at the companies that have done their patriotic duty.
They are big names: Sears and Roebuck, out of my State of Illinois,
IBM, General Motors, United Parcel Service, Ford, 24 State governments.
But not the U.S. Federal Government. And, Mr. President, do you know
what the problem is? Every time we pass it on the floor, so many
Members race up here to vote for it, saying: Oh, we are all for the men
and women in uniform; God bless them; give me a flag to wave; we are
all with them. And then as soon as it gets in conference committee,
they strip it. Year after year they take out this protection for
Federal employees who are literally risking their lives today in the
Guard and Reserve.
According to a recent survey made by the Defense Department, 51
percent of the Guard and Reserve members suffer a loss of income during
long periods of active duty. Three-quarters of Guard and Reserve
members surveyed cited income as one of the major reasons they were
leaving the service. We know recruiting is down, retention is under
pressure, and yet we refuse to make up the difference in pay for 1 of
every 10 Guard and Reserve.
Today, 17,000 Federal employees are activated. To date, 36,000 have
been activated and deactivated. So large numbers of men and women are
affected by this amendment. And in the darkness of the conference,
after the doors are closed, when the press has left, when nobody is
watching, they take out this protection for Federal employees.
The lead sponsors of this provision are going to continue the effort
with me. Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, and Senator George
Allen, a Republican from Virginia, have joined me. Our measure is
endorsed by the Reserve Officers Association, the Enlisted Association
of the National Guard, and the National Guard Association of the United
States.
The Congressional Budget Office and the Budget Committee staff
studied our plan. They agree it would not add $1 to the budget because
the cost of the affected workers' salaries is already included in the
budget.
The last time the conferees met, I asked the chairman, Senator
Cochran, for his assurance that the Republicans would not do what they
have done in the past and kill this amendment without giving us a
chance for an up-or-down vote in front of God and the world. I was
given that assurance, but sadly it did not happen.
The conference committee recessed and disappeared and, unfortunately,
we never had a chance to have an open vote on whether we would stand
behind these Guard and Reserve members. That is unfortunate. I had
hoped the assurance by the chairman would mean we would get that vote.
It did not happen.
It appears the White House overrode anyone's intent to bring this
measure up for consideration. Josh Bolton, the Director of the Office
of Management and Budget, released a letter saying the White House
opposed our reservist pay amendment because it would ``increase costs
and have a negative impact on morale and unit cohesion.''
Think about that. The argument is that the soldiers under fire
worrying from day to day whether they will be alive would compare pay
stubs and have a general conversation about how much money are you
getting from your employer, how much are you receiving, as if they
would care. Those units go into battle together to protect their lives.
I do not think they resented that one soldier in that unit had help
because he happened to be an employee of Sears, another soldier because
he happened to be an employee of one of the 23 State and local
governments. They are not going to hold that against their fellow
soldiers. That is going to undermine morale? They have to say: You are
lucky; I happen to work for the Federal Government, and I get no help.
I come here and risk my life, and this amendment is defeated in the
darkness of a conference committee every single year.
That argument is just nonsense.
What message are we sending to conscientious employers?
Unfortunately, the wrong message: Do as we say, not as we do. Listen to
the Federal Government, listen to the Members of Congress with all
their patriotic speeches, and then watch as we deep-six this provision
year after year. It is an unfortunate message to some of the best men
and women in America who risk their lives for our freedom.
We also wanted to push for more veterans health services. Senator
Murray of Washington offered a $2 billion amendment, and she said if
the war is an emergency, treatment of the veterans of the war should be
an emergency. We know that is true. We know these veterans come home
with real needs.
I had hearings across my State on posttraumatic stress disorder. I
have been around this business for a long time. I have never, ever
witnessed what I did then. We had men and women coming in who had
served in Iraq and returned, young men and women who risked their lives
wearing the uniform of America. They are home now, but
[[Page S4829]]
the war is still on their mind. For many of them, it is a destructive
memory, things they saw and things they did which they cannot get out
of their minds. They come back and finally realize they need a helping
hand. They are estranged from their families. Their spouses are saying:
That is not the same soldier who I sent over there. What happened to
him?
They find themselves despondent, angry, unable to cope with ordinary
life, turning on members of their family in anger, and they need help.
Sadly, too many of them need help they cannot find at the veterans
hospitals. So if we promise these men and women when they serve our
country that we will stand behind them, should not the Veterans'
Administration, the hospitals and clinics, be ready to stand behind
them, when they come home, for their injuries, for this posttraumatic
stress disorder? Is it too much to ask that we have family therapists
who will work with spouses and children who have seen a different
father or a different mother come home? I believe it is only
reasonable.
Senator Murray led the way. She asked for $2 billion to be put in as
an emergency for veterans hospitals and clinics. It was turned down on
the Senate floor.
I am glad that the death gratuity is increased. Twelve thousand
dollars for your life in service of your country? I am glad we have
raised that to $100,000 tax free for spouses and children of those who
die in service. It also increases from $250,000 to $400,000 the life
insurance benefits that are available. There is one catch. In the
Senate, we voted to increase these benefits for the families of all
Active-Duty service members, but behind the closed doors of this
conference committee which met in private and in secret, the
Republicans changed the rules. They decided on their own, without a
vote, without a discussion, to restrict the new death benefits and the
new life insurance benefits only to families of service members who die
in a combat zone. That simple geographical distinction, ``in a combat
zone,'' could disqualify about half of all families who have lost a
loved one serving on active duty since the start of the war in
Afghanistan. These families will not be eligible for the new benefits
because the husbands and fathers, wives and mothers died outside of
what is technically classified a combat zone. That is arbitrary, that
is wrong, it is unfair. Whether a soldier dies in Iraq or training to
go to Iraq, his sacrifice is equally great, the loss to his family
equally devastating, and our Government owes an equal debt to his wife
and children.
We have had testimony from those uniformed officials who appear
before the Armed Services Committee and we ask them about this. Admiral
John Nathman, Vice Chief of Naval Operations for the Navy, said: ``They
can't make that distinction. I don't think we should, either,'' in
terms of who is dying in a combat zone and who is not.
General T. Michael Moseley, Air Force Vice Chief, said:
I believe a death is a death, and I believe this should be
treated that way. . . .
Sadly, these people were not listened to and, unfortunately, this
bill does not provide the protection which our soldiers truly need and
deserve.
Senator DeWine and I, on a bipartisan basis, are lead sponsors of a
bill to change that benefit and to make it fair. I certainly hope we
can.
This bill also shortchanges our first front-line troops at home, the
first responders. All across America, police, fire departments, and EMT
squads are stretched thin. Many lack equipment. Many of them are not
getting the HAZMAT and other specialized training they need. This bill
does not contain one dollar, not one dime for first responders.
We have so few Border Patrol agents that vigilante groups such as the
armed Minutemen have decided to take it upon themselves to patrol the
borders of the United States. Yet this bill contains funds to hire only
500 new Border Patrol agents--not enough to do the job. New York City
has 40,000 police officers. We have 10,000 border agents to secure the
entire U.S.-Canadian and U.S.-Mexican borders, even with the new agents
in this bill. The Republicans have argued we can afford to give a
$35,000 tax break to a person who is earning over $1 million a year,
but we cannot afford to hire 500 Border Patrol agents. Their priorities
speak for themselves. Homeland security is not a job for armed
volunteers; it is a job for professionals, and it ought to be a
priority for this Congress.
Now let me speak for a moment to this REAL ID bill. This is a serious
problem. If one is going to use a driver's license to prove their
identity, wherever it may be--stopped by a highway patrolman or getting
on an airplane--we need to make sure that driver's license is
authentic.
We have 50 States with different standards for establishing one's
identity. It is a serious problem, serious enough that when the 9/11
Commission report came out and we put together a bipartisan bill to
respond to it, we included a provision in that bill that required the
Federal Government and State governments to work together to come up
with realistic, operable standards to prove identity for those who were
applying for driver's licenses. We passed that bill overwhelmingly on a
bipartisan basis. I was happy to be one of the cosponsors of that
legislation and glad that the President signed it. Then Members of the
House said: We do not agree with that cooperative process. We want to
establish the standards on our own. We want to write them into law. And
they created something called the REAL ID Act.
We did not have public hearings on the REAL ID Act. We did not invite
in the Governors. We did not invite the State motor vehicle agencies.
We did not have a conversation about an honest and realistic way to
approach it. We were given this on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.
The American people deserve to know what they can look forward to
under this REAL ID Act, which is part of this emergency supplemental.
Some say that it is just simply going to keep illegal immigrants from
obtaining driver's licenses. If that were the case, it would be a much
different and much smaller bill.
Under this law, to get a driver's license in any State in America,
one will need to present several pieces of identification. One has to
provide a photo ID document or a non-photo document containing both the
individual's full legal name and date of birth; and documentation of
the individual's date of birth, Social Security number or the
individual's non-eligibility for a Social Security number, and the name
and address of the individual's principal residence.
Now there is a catch to this. One has to come into that driver's
license station with that proof. What is it going to be? Well, they at
least need a birth certificate, that is for sure, or something like it.
They are also going to need some proof of their Social Security number.
They are also going to need some proof of their residence. Now when
they bring those documents in for their driver's license, the State
employee whom they face, who is issuing the driver's license, cannot
just accept them at face value; they have to take the documents and
verify them with the agency that issued them. Until they verify them, a
person cannot receive a driver's license.
Imagine if one is a naturalized American citizen who was born in the
former Yugoslavia. You present your birth certificate to the clerk at
the Department of Motor Vehicles. There are two big problems.
How is that clerk in Springfield, IL, at secretary of state Jesse
White's motor vehicle facility, going to verify the authenticity of
documents issued by a government that no longer exists? Good question.
I do not know the answer.
There is another problem. The REAL ID Act says that the State cannot
accept any foreign document other than an official passport. So, even
if the clerk could verify the birth certificate, he cannot accept it.
Imagine you are the person behind the counter.
What are you going to do? With whom do you check? Whom do you call?
And what do you do about the people standing in line waiting for their
turn to put more documents on the desk?
If you think a trip to the Department of Motor Vehicles is a bad
experience today, wait until the REAL ID takes effect. This is not
necessarily going to make America any safer. It will make States
poorer. The estimates are it will cost States about $500 million to
$700 million, another unfunded mandate,
[[Page S4830]]
and in return for this massive cost and inconvenience we will get, at
best, marginal increases in security.
The States have 3 years to put this in place and, incidentally, if we
find States that don't have it in place in 3 years, an interesting
thing happens. No one's driver's license from a State that hasn't been
certified to be in compliance can be used for Federal identification.
And if it turns out the State of Illinois, at the end of 3 years, still
does not have this together, what is going to happen? It means myself,
as a resident from Illinois, presenting a driver's license at the
airport, will be turned away. Illinois licenses are not accepted. That
is what this bill says--without 1 minute of hearing in the Senate,
without 1 minute of debate on the floor of the Senate.
This is an unworkable and unfunded mandate.
In a conference committee, I said to the chairman: I think we need a
vote on this. I think members ought to be asked to stand up and explain
why they are going to support this without any hearing, without any
deliberation. I want to debate it, and I would like to have an official
vote so we know where the Members of the Senate and the House stand on
this proposal.
I believed that I had an assurance that I would receive it, but I
didn't. Ultimately, the committee recessed. No votes were taken. It
comes to us now as part of this funding for the troops on a take-it-or-
leave-it basis. That is not a good way to legislate.
Let me also say I think this REAL ID is going to create hardships
that are totally unnecessary. We can ascertain the identity, and we
should, of the people applying for driver's licenses. But the way this
was written is sadly not going to achieve that in the most efficient
way. The REAL ID Act is another provision on which I wanted a vote,
wanted a discussion, and wanted an open debate. Unfortunately, it did
not occur.
Many Democrats, despite this provision, will still support this bill
because we have said from the start we are going to stand behind our
troops. I think the administration, the Republican leadership in
Congress, is testing us. How many things can they load into this bill
to force us to vote for something we are troubled with, and that is
what it is all about. We all know this is not the way to pay for a war
and it is not the way for Congress to operate. The late Larry Lindsey--
I say ``late'' because he is no longer in public service--was fired for
saying the war might cost $200 billion. Now we are up to $300 billion
and counting. Sadly, too many of the important decisions on funding
this war are still being made by one party behind closed doors.
We will pass this bill, Democrats will support it, but this has to be
the end of it. We need to fix this broken process. The American people
deserve better.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois not only
for the time but also for his eloquent statement about this
legislation, and particularly the REAL ID bill.
The emergency supplemental bill we are considering today provides
needed funding for our men and women in uniform who are engaged in
combat operations in Afghanistan and in Iraq, as well as emergency
assistance to the victims of the tsunami. This aid and assistance
cannot wait because it is a demonstration of our Nation's good will
towards those who have been devastated by natural disaster, and also
our commitment to our soldiers in combat. These noble goals are
unfortunately tainted, however, by the decision of the Republican
leadership to include a controversial piece of legislation known as the
REAL ID Act.
Senator Durbin has gone into great detail to show how unwieldy it is
and perhaps how unnecessary it is. There are other ways to more
effectively and efficiently verify the identity of individuals.
Also, this kind of back-door legislating is symptomatic of the
majority's near total disregard for the precedents and procedures of
the Senate that have served our Nation so well and for so long. I hope
the American people realize this maneuver is yet another example of the
majority's desire to pass the most controversial legislation by sliding
it into a bill which cannot be amended and is subject only to an up-or-
down vote.
With no Senate debate, and very little review, the REAL ID Act makes
significant and harmful changes to our Nation's immigration system, as
well as our system of licensure of automobiles and drivers throughout
the United States.
Like many, I believe immigration is an issue we cannot and should not
ignore. However, the REAL ID Act is not the comprehensive immigration
reform that we have gone far too long without. Instead, it
vastly alters our Nation's established asylum procedures, placing the
burden of proof on the applicants by requiring them to document their
torture or persecution. Potential asylum seekers are already thoroughly
investigated, and those suspected of engaging in terrorist activities
are already prohibited from being granted asylum under our current
system. Yet the REAL ID Act will make it increasingly difficult for
those escaping political persecution and torture to seek refuge.
In addition, the REAL ID Act would suspend habeas corpus review of
orders of removal for aliens in the United States. Essentially, this
change eliminates the right of aliens facing deportation to ask the
court to review their deportation, a right which the Supreme Court has
already upheld. This provision will deny innocently detained aliens the
opportunity to plead their case before a judge. This goes against the
core principle upon which our Nation was founded.
It is unfortunate these unsound provisions will be enacted as part of
this bill. It is my hope that in the very near future we will be able
to have a national discussion on immigration in a comprehensive,
thoughtful, and deliberate way that will provide real solutions to real
problems. It is not possible to solve our immigration problems by
simply removing those who seek legitimate help from our Nation, or by
raising the bar for those who are immigrating here legally. As a nation
of immigrants and a global leader on human rights, the inclusion of the
REAL ID Act in this bill and in this manner is unacceptable, and I will
work with like-minded colleagues to reverse this law.
I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Illinois.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask
unanimous consent the time under the quorum be charged equally to both
sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeMint). Without objection, it is so
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the fiscal year
2005 emergency supplemental appropriations bill. Every day in Iraq and
Afghanistan, the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces risk their
lives to defend ours. They are completing a mission they did not ask
for and, in Iraq, a mission that is longer and more dangerous than they
were ever told. Yet amid roadside explosions, insurgent attacks, and
the loss of some of their closest friends, they wake up each day and do
their jobs. They wake up each day and do whatever it takes to leave a
democratic Iraq for a free Iraqi people.
This bill is a way for us to support these efforts. With its passage,
I sincerely hope our troops will receive all the support and all the
equipment they need to do their job. With its passage, I hope we do not
hear any more stories about troops driving convoys with unarmored
humvees, or about troops going into battle with armor their parents had
to send them from home for their birthday. And I sincerely hope this
money will be used to train more Iraqis to secure their own country so
we can bring home our young people safe and secure.
I particularly thank the chairman and ranking member of the
Appropriations Committee for working with me on several other emergency
spending needs.
I say to Senator Cochran, I appreciate that this bill provides $25
million for the prevention of the avian flu. As
[[Page S4831]]
some of you may have read, the number of cases in Southeast Asia is
increasing, and there is serious concern that this virus could mutate
and jump from continent to continent, potentially causing a pandemic
that could kill millions of people. We have to work proactively to
prevent such a pandemic, and I appreciate the support from the
committee chairman as well as the administration on this issue.
Also included in the bill is an amendment I sponsored with my friend
from South Carolina, Senator Graham. This amendment will ensure that
our injured service members who remain under medical care but are no
longer hospitalized will not have to pay for their meals while
receiving therapy. I thank the graciousness of Senator Cochran for
adopting that amendment on the floor without debate.
I also joined with Senator Durbin to address the security needs of
our judiciary. As some of my colleagues know, a Federal judge in
Illinois recently suffered a tragic loss, the murder of her mother and
her husband. This bill provides necessary funding for the U.S. Marshal
Service to step up its security for our Federal judges.
I commend all those who have been involved, including the chairman,
for crafting a number of important measures in this bill. I wish that I
could, without any further statement, simply say how proud I am of our
troops and move on with the supplemental. Unfortunately, this bill also
includes some immigration provisions, known as REAL ID, that cause me
enormous concern. Although I will certainly vote for the conference
report because of the good measures I have already discussed, it is
important to state for the record my serious reservations about REAL
ID.
Despite the fact that almost all of these immigration provisions are
controversial, the Senate did not conduct a full hearing or debate on
any one of them. While they may do very little to increase homeland
security, they come at a heavy price for struggling State budgets and
our values as a compassionate country. The driver's license provisions
in REAL ID, for example, will cost an estimated $100 million over 5
years. States will have to bear the majority of these costs. At a time
when budgets are tight, I don't think we should be outsourcing our
homeland security to States that can't afford it.
The cost to our Nation's legacy as a refuge for asylum seekers is
also heavy. Conferees were able to improve some aspects of REAL ID,
including increasing the limit on the number of foreigners who can
apply for asylum in the United States, but other provisions intended to
eliminate fraudulent asylum applications may end up denying asylum to
people who deserve to receive it.
These are costs that call for greater examination. As a sovereign
country, we have the right to control and identify those who enter and
exit. I have worked with my colleagues to support hundreds of millions
of dollars for more Border Patrol agents to help exercise that right.
But controlling immigration is a Federal responsibility--it always has
been--and it should not come at the expense of State budgets or basic
civil liberties. We should have more time to examine and debate the
REAL ID provisions as part of comprehensive immigration reform.
These provisions, currently in the bill, are opposed by religious
organizations, civil liberties groups, civil rights organizations,
church groups, and hundreds of other groups. The legitimate concerns of
these groups have not been properly aired in the Senate. I am aware of
the fact that the REAL ID Act, despite what I say, despite my
reservations, will become law. It will become law not because it is the
right thing to do but because the House majority has abused its
privilege to attach this unexamined bill to must-pass legislation. This
is highly inappropriate, and I hope that all of the Senate will agree
to highlight and correct the deficiencies of these immigration
provisions in the year to come.
I yield the floor.
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. This emergency supplemental appropriations bill
helps us do just that.
The House and Senate have worked hard to respond to the President's
request for additional funding to support our operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan. We have provided more than $75 million in defense-related
spending, including vital support to our soldiers and their families.
We have also provided more than $6 billion in assistance to our friends
and allies, including $681 million to aid in the recovery from last
year's terrible tsunami in Indonesia.
We have provided a total of $17.4 billion to speed up the Army's
purchase of trucks, additional up-armored humvees, and upgrades to
Abrams tanks. There is also $1 billion for additional purchases of Army
and Marine Corps trucks, tactical vehicles like humvees, night vision
and other important protective equipment to keep our soldiers as safe
as possible on the battlefield. We have also preserved support for the
C130J aircraft, so vital to transporting troops and materiel around the
world.
U.S. troops will stay in Iraq and Afghanistan long enough to ensure
that those nations can defend themselves against chaos and terrorism.
It is important that we provide training and equipment to prepare Iraqi
and Afghan security forces to take over when American troops come home.
To do this, we have provided $7.0 billion to train security forces in
Afghanistan and Iraq. There is also $1.78 billion for Afghan
reconstruction and counter-narcotics efforts. In addition to providing
$7.7 million to support U.S. diplomatic and reconstruction efforts in
Iraq, we have provided $20 million in assistance to Iraqi families who
have been affected by coalition operations in Iraq.
We must do everything we can to care for soldiers when they are
injured. I am very proud that we have provided an additional $211
million for the Defense Health program.
This funding also includes assistance to provide meal and telephone
services for soldiers recuperating from injuries suffered in Iraq or
Afghanistan. It also provides assistance for family members to travel
to be with an injured service member recovering from combat injuries.
To help soldiers with the enormous medical costs that can be associated
with combat injuries, we have also made it possible for service members
to get traumatic-injury protection as part of their military insurance
package. This insurance rider can be worth as much as $100,000 to
service members enrolled in the Servicemembers Group Life Insurance,
SGLI, program. We have also made it available retroactively, to help
out those soldiers and families already dealing with combat and combat-
related injuries.
Mr. President, more than 1,700 service men 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 while they are dealing with the
loss of a loved one.
I am very proud that we have been able to help alleviate their
burden, by increasing from $12,000 to $100,000 the fallen heroes
compensation for family members of troops who make the ultimate
sacrifice for our country. This benefit is applied retroactively, to
include all service members who have died since the global war on
terror began in October 2001. In addition, the family of a service
member who has died will be allowed to remain in military housing for a
year, rather than the six months currently allowed. We have also
increased the life insurance benefit provided under the SGLI, from
$250,000 to $400,000. This increase will also be applied retroactively
to 2001.
I am disappointed that the conferees did not accept the advice of the
Senate--and of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff GEN Richard
Myers--and provide the fallen heroes compensation to families of all
service members who die on active duty.
Instead, Congress has expanded all aspects of the current coverage to
include those who die in designated combat zones and in combat-related
activities, such as training. This is a good start, but I agree with
General Myers that every family who loses a loved one on active duty
deserves the gratitude of this nation and should benefit from the
fallen heroes fund.
We also need to make sure that families receive the full amount of
this compensation. Working closely with Senator Grassley, I have taken
steps
[[Page S4832]]
to ensure that the full benefit will be tax free. Senator Grassley has
assured me that this important correction will be added to the next tax
bill considered in the Senate.
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.
I am very disappointed that this conference report does not include
the Reservist Pay Security Act, which would ensure that the U.S.
government also makes up for this pay gap for Federal employees who are
activated in the Guard and Reserves. This legislation has passed the
Senate three times, and three times it has been stripped out of the
conference report. I will continue to work with my colleagues in the
House and Senate to build support for this important provision to help
our National Guard and Reserves.
Mr. President, 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.
Congress has provided $656 million for the tsunami recovery and
reconstruction fund to support on-going and long-term relief efforts,
including programs aimed specifically at women and children in the
affected areas. We have also provided $25 million for U.S. tsunami
warning programs to help prevent future human disasters on the scale we
have seen in Asia.
The people of Darfur continue to suffer the terrible effects of war
in the Sudan. Congress has provided $248 million for humanitarian
assistance to Darfur and $37 million for Sudan peace implementation
assistance. We have also included $50 million to be made available to
the African Union, for peacekeeping efforts in Darfur. Also, part of
the $90 million provided for food aid and famine relief can be used to
help improve conditions in Darfur.
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 the Senate's
efforts to insist that the President fund our operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan through the regular budget and appropriations process.
After three years in Afghanistan and two years in Iraq, we should not
be funding these operations as if they were surprise emergencies.
Unfortunately, because much of the funding included in this
conference report has been designated as an ``emergency,'' it will not
count against our budget limits and instead just gets added to our
ever-growing national debt.
This emergency supplemental 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 getting them the best
health care available when they are injured in service to our Nation.
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.
I am proud to vote yes for our troops and their families. I am also
proud to vote yes because this bill contains important provisions to
help small and seasonal businesses in the United States.
The emergency supplemental contains language that provides real
relief to small businesses that need temporary seasonal workers by the
summer. This emergency supplemental contains the language I offered on
the floor of the Senate to temporarily solve the H2B visa shortage. It
passed this body by a overwhelming bipartisan vote of 96-4 and was
adopted by both House and Senate conferees to be part of the final
bill.
I know that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle supported this
amendment because it is a limited fix to the H2B worker shortage that
many coastal states and resort states are facing. This solution is
desperately and immediately needed by small and seasonal businesses
throughout the country.
My amendment helps us keep American jobs, keep American companies
open, and yet retain control of our borders
I am very proud that we were able to work together, House and Senate,
Democrats and Republicans, to pass this measure. This bill was a simply
fix, it was temporary and it does not get in the way of comprehensive
reform
The amendment and the Save our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act on
which it is modeled will help small business by doing three things:
No. 1, temporarily exempting good actor workers from the H2B cap, so
employers apply for and name employees who have already been in U.S.;
No. 2, protecting against fraud in the H2B program; and
No. 3, providing a fair and balanced allocation system for H2B visas.
This amendment first and foremost protects American jobs.
It provides a short-term fix to the H2B visa cap which will only be
in place through fiscal year 2006. It has four simple provisions:
One, it exempts returning seasonal workers from the cap for this year
and next. That means that people who have worked here before and who
have gone back home are the only ones who would be eligible. The
exemption works this way--an employer requests a visa and lists the
name of the returning worker on his petition. The employer must provide
supporting documentation to the Department of Homeland Security or the
State Department that the worker is a returning worker who has come to
the United States in one of the 3 prior years under the H2B program.
This exemption does not exempt any new workers because employers must
show that the worker was in the US previously in order for that worker
to be exempt from the cap. Employers can petition for exempted workers
at any time during the fiscal year--regardless of whether the cap on H-
2B visas has been met or not. The legislation explicitly states that
exempted workers are outside the cap.
The employer does not automatically get the exempted worker, they
still must go through the whole DOL and DHS process before they can get
exempted workers. That means that employers still must prove to the
Department of Labor that they cannot find American workers to fill
these jobs. Only then will DOL give them the ability to continue the
application process and get the workers who they need through DHS and
State. Employers will go through the whole process for new or returning
workers. Returning workers will be exempt from but new workers will be
subject to the cap.
This provision is both forward looking and retroactive back to the
beginning of the fiscal year, or October 2004. That means that DHS will
have to determine how many returning workers were admitted prior to the
passage of this Act and open up those spaces to new workers. That makes
it fair so that summer employers have the same bite at the apple that
winter employers had. DHS estimates that between 30,000 and 35,000
workers are returning workers and they will be able to use the
information they have in their databases and in coordination with the
Department of State to ensure that spots that were counted in the cap
and used by exempted workers will now be opened up for new workers to
use so that summer employers can get their fair share.
This fix also has strong antifraud provisions to make sure that
everyone is playing by the rules and that no one is misusing the
program. And it gives DHS added teeth to prevent fraud and enforce our
Nation's immigration laws. A $150 antifraud fee ensures that Government
agencies processing the H-2B visas will get added resources to detect
and prevent fraud. This money is added to an antifruad fund to give the
Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State and the
Department of Labor some added resources to train workers so that they
can identify fraud in the program.
[[Page S4833]]
We also add strong new sanctions to the law. These sanctions are
permanent and further strengthen DHS's enforcement power by allowing
sanctions against those who have a significant misrepresentation of
facts on a petition. We increase fines and allow DHS to bar violating
employers from the H-2B program for up to 5 years. This section also
sends a strong message to employers--don't play games with U.S. jobs.
Our bill reserves the highest penalties for employer actions which harm
U.S. workers.
We also make the system better by creating a fair allocation of
visas. Under current law summer employers lose out because winter
employers get all the visas. So our bill does two things: First, as I
said above, we exempt returning workers from the cap, so returning
workers don't count for the cap. But we also divide the cap between
summer and winter. What that means is that of the 66,000 visas and we
make 33,000 available from October thru March and 33,000 available from
April thru September. Winter employers get half and summer employers
get half. And we make this change permanent to make sure that even if
comprehensive reform cannot be reached by 2006, then at least summer
and winter employers are competing for the limited number of visas on a
level playing field.
Finally, we give the Department of Homeland Security the ability to
implement this law now, without having to issue regulations. That means
that employers get real relief now. DHS has a limited exemption from
the Administrative Procedure Act to implement the exemption section,
the antifraud fees and also the allocation of visas section. These
exemptions are to prevent any barriers or delay to the immediate
implementation of those provisions.
So that is what this strong bipartisan legislation is all about. This
is the language that 94 Senators in this body supported and that the
House adopted into the emergency supplemental conference report.
Now we want to make sure that DHS can start its implementation
immediately so I want to make sure that they are very clear about what
the congressional intent of this legislation is:
Section 402 is intended to increase the number of H-2B admissions
available for fiscal years 2005 and 2006. This legislation was drafted
with the understanding that the preexisting USCIS method of
implementing the H-2B limitation is based upon accepting for filing the
number of petitions (only some of which name the specific workers) that
is projected to result in the authorized number of admissions, with
allowance made for an expected number of petitions that will be denied
or revoked and of workers with approved petitions who will not apply
for or qualify for visas or admission, based upon State Department
information.
Consistent with this general methodology, and with the fact that
USCIS has already received sufficient petitions for fiscal year 2005 to
fill the cap and has not required any information to be provided as to
whether the petitions were filed for ``returning workers'', it is
intended that USCIS to make its best estimate as to the number of
previously filed petitions that likely were for returning workers,
based on State Department information, and accordingly to free up
numbers for fiscal year 2005 to be available to otherwise qualified H-
2B aliens, whether or not they are ``returning workers.''
In addition, H-2B workers will be available to petitioners
identifying and certifying specific aliens to be returning workers. For
fiscal year 2006, the number of new H-2B admissions available will be
66,000, plus any aliens for whom the certification and confirmation
requirements of section 214(g)(9)(A), (B), and (C) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act, as amended by this section, are met.
Specifically, Section 405 provides that the 66,000 limitation on H-2B
admissions for fiscal year 2006 and thereafter will be administered as
two half-year limitations of 33,000 each applicable to aliens subject
to the overall 66,000 limitation, i.e, not including ``returning
workers.'' It is the intention of the supporters of the amendment that
this provision be administered so as to give employers seeking workers
for the second half of the year an opportunity to obtain them at least
equivalent to that available to first semester employers.
Finally, section 407, is intended to allow this law to be implemented
expeditiously. The intent was to make sure that the provisions of the
Administrative Procedure Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and other
laws relating to regulatory processes and forms--especially, but not
limited to, any requirement to promulgate new rules--to the extent any
such provisions might apply, should not pose a barrier in any way to
the expeditious implementation of the provisions of this Act intended
to give urgent and necessary relief to summer and seasonal employers
and to apply the new fee provision in section 403. We therefore,
provide the authority to the relevant departments to waive any such
requirement that may otherwise delay such implementation.
It is a quick and simple legislative remedy with strong bi-partisan
support. It fixes the problem now and takes small steps to prevent this
drastic shortage in the future. It is immediate and achievable because
DHS will start implementation once it is signed by the President. And
more importantly, it does not exacerbate our immigration problems.
Mr. President, it is important that we continue to support the brave
men and women who put their lives on the line both at home and abroad.
But today, as I support funding for our troops I also stand opposed to
the part of the emergency supplemental known as REAL ID.
This controversial and overly-broad provision has no place in an
emergency spending bill. The changes to our immigration laws and the
policies on asylum proposed by this legislation are major modifications
that are contentious on both sides of the aisle. As it is written, this
bill undermines both due process and the principles of fundamental
fairness on which our immigration laws are based.
This legislation, plain and simple, is a drastic and unknown change.
It is the type of change that both the House and the Senate should have
deliberated on and given in-depth consideration to. The Senate has not
had the opportunity to do that.
Just look at what this legislation does:
First, it increases the burdens on those seeking asylum in the United
States and limits judicial review of some decisions. These are people
who are often persecuted in their own countries and cannot produce the
level of documentation or corroboration of their abuse that this bill
requires.
Next, it permits the Department of Homeland Security to waive ``all
legal requirements'' that interfere with the construction of roads or
barriers along our borders. That means that the Secretary of Homeland
Security can waive any State or Federal environmental, health and
safety, civil rights, labor, or criminal law. And there is very limited
ability of anyone to challenge these decisions. That means the
Secretary has a tremendous amount of discretion to override existing
laws and step all over State's rights.
It also limits judicial review of removal cases and discretionary
decisions of agencies--that means an agency, not a judge, will have the
final say.
And most notably, it creates national standards for identification
cards that States must enforce. That means that States now must not
only verify the many forms of identification that are required, but
they are also responsible for keeping track of a drivers license
holder's immigration status. That creates a huge increase in expenses
for States and it also means that State officials, who have no
background in immigration law, will be forced to enforce these
complicated provisions. That's an unfunded mandate on States that are
already in fiscal crisis.
Plain and simple REAL ID drastically changes immigration laws, limits
access to the courts and due process, and places significant new costs
and duties on local and State governments. The Senate should have had
the ability to review, debate, and amend this provision before it
became a permanent part of our Federal immigration law.
Now, I am the first to agree that we need strong and comprehensive
immigration reform. We need to look at all the problems with protecting
our borders and ensuring our safety. We need to make sure that the
programs that work are updated and continued. We
[[Page S4834]]
need to make sure that the programs that don't work are fixed so that
we do not have porous borders. But we need to use regular order to do
so.
The Senate must have the opportunity to consider comprehensive
reform, not focus on piecemeal measures. And President Bush should lead
the way in working with Congress and our allies for solutions that
protect our borders. And for solutions that allow our rich history and
tradition of immigration to continue. But these supposed solutions
cannot come at the expense of our constitutional framework.
REAL ID is an unfunded mandate that is punitive. We do not know if
any of the provisions will actually make us safer--we just know that
they override States rights and undermine civil rights and civil
liberties. I believe that it is our duty, as Members of the Senate, to
balance national security interests with due process and constitutional
rights, yet because we have not had hearings or been able to evaluate
this change to our immigration law we do not know the extent of its
impact.
REAL ID proposes several different and significant changes to our
immigration laws, I believe that it is important for the Senate
Judiciary Committee to have an opportunity to hold hearings and
consider comprehensive legislation that looks at all areas of the law.
Then the whole Senate should have the ability to fully debate the issue
on the Senate floor.
I am disappointed that this controversial measure was added to this
must pass legislation. We should be passing an emergency supplemental
bill without the harmful REAL ID provision. And then we should turn our
attention to real reform and the Senate should proceed to a thoughtful
and comprehensive debate on immigration reform that protects our
borders and our constitutional mandate.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, the attacks of September 11, 2001 reminded
us all that national security is of the utmost importance. Since then,
we have worked to ensure the safety of this country. Still, there are
gaps in our immigration and identification systems that need attention.
Those with ties to terrorist organizations should not be given asylum
or permission to live in this country where they can do harm. Barriers
on our borders should be enhanced to adequately protect our national
security. Driver's licenses and personal ID cards should be secure, and
should not be given to terrorists or those who are in this country
illegally.
There are provisions to address each of these concerns in the REAL ID
Act of 2005, which has been attached to the Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act. I have expressed my reservations about possible
unforeseen costs to my State of Montana that these provisions could
impose, particularly the costs of changing the system of issuing
driver's licenses. Ultimately, however, I firmly believe that the
fundamental aspects of this bill will make Montana, a border State
where homeland security is of paramount concern, and our country safer
and more secure in this era where illegal immigration is out of control
and the security of our identification systems continues to be lacking.
I am confident that any remaining funding issues can be worked out
later in the implementation process. Our job now is to move forward,
and make sure that these provisions are put into place with the best
interest of this country in mind.
As I have said before, my State of Montana has one of the largest
international borders. A lot of attention has been placed on border
security lately, particularly on the northern border. I think we can
all agree that the northern border has been historically understaffed
and lacks the necessary infrastructure to adequately screen individuals
seeking entry into the United States who wish to do us harm. I have
always supported increasing the number of border patrol agents along
Montana's northern border. It does not make sense for the Department of
Homeland Security to heavily staff the southern borders while leaving
large gaps wide open on the northern border. The end result is that
those wanting to enter the United States illegally may focus on the
less secured border regions of the north so that they may cross over
undetected. Unfortunately, the grave threat of this happening along
Montana's vast border remains a reality.
In view of this, during debate on the Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act, I was a cosponsor of the Ensign amendment which was
adopted that would increase the number of Border Patrol agents and
provide funding for Border Patrol facilities. I am happy to report that
the conferees reached a compromise that would provide $635 million for
increased border security and enforcement; this includes $176 million
to hire, train, equip, and support 500 Border Patrol agents and relieve
current facility overcrowding. The supplemental also includes almost
half a billion dollars for Immigration and Customs enforcement; $97.5
million of this would be used to hire and train additional criminal
investigators and immigration enforcement agents.
I will always vote to protect our homeland and the safety of our
citizens, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same as the Senate
considers the supplemental for final passage.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
bill for fiscal year 2005 is a vital piece of legislation. It provides
$75.9 billion for the Department of Defense, nearly $4 billion for the
Department of State, and billions more for military construction and
other national priorities. It will come as no surprise to anyone that
Congress will pass this bill with an overwhelming majority. Instead, we
should be asking what took so long.
The administration continues to play games with the funding of the
war on terror and the war in Iraq. These aren't inside-the-beltway
issues. Every day the administration resists bringing forward an
accurate and reasonable accounting of our future needs in Iraq, it
complicates the way the Department of Defense conducts business.
In recent weeks, the Pentagon has been forced to shuffle $1.1 billion
to cover Army shortfalls while the Department of Defense waits for the
President to sign the supplemental into law. That $1.1 billion came out
of Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Army National Guard personnel
accounts. That is a dangerous way to conduct business.
As we pass this legislation, I urge the President to heed the advice
of so many Senators who believe that he must better reflect the costs
of war in his regular defense budgets and simply be straight with the
American people about the ongoing costs of operations in Iraq and
elsewhere. Our troops shouldn't have to wait for the gear and equipment
they need to do their jobs well, to win the peace in Iraq, to bring the
terrorists to justice in Afghanistan and around the world, and to come
home.
This bill takes some important steps toward the Military Family Bill
of Rights which we have talked about for many months. It increases to
$400,000 the life insurance coverage available to service members, and
raises the death gratuity to $100,000 for those who die in combat and
in combat-related incidents, including training. It also extends to 1
year the length of time widows and children of military personnel may
remain in military housing. Together, these provisions are important
affirmations of the Congress' support for the men and women of the
American military and their families. I thank the House-Senate
conferees for including those provisions.
I regret that the House-Senate Conferees struck a provision that the
Senate added to pay an equal death gratuity to the survivors of all
service members killed while on active duty, regardless of the
circumstances. This policy was supported by 75 Senators in a floor
vote. It was supported by the House in its version of the legislation.
And it is supported by the uniformed leadership of the military. It is
clear that the civilian leadership at the Pentagon, led by Secretary
Rumsfeld, opposed it. While they have succeeded in striking the
provision from this supplemental legislation, I will continue to work
with my colleagues, many of whom have worked on this issue for some
time, for its enactment.
While I support this bill overall, I have serious concerns about the
attachment of the REAL ID Act to the conference report. This
legislation creates new hurdles for legitimate asylum seekers, allows
the government to waive environmental laws to build physical barriers
on the border, and forces an unfunded mandate on the States. This
legislation did not have so
[[Page S4835]]
much as a hearing in the U.S. Senate. Such legislation should be
considered in committee and before the full Senate, rather than being
attached to an emergency spending bill. It is my hope that the Senate
will work to amend the most damaging provisions of the REAL ID Act as
soon as possible.
I am pleased that the conference report includes the ``Save our Small
and Seasonal Businesses Act'' which makes changes to the H-2B visa
program. This provision will provide great relief to many small
businesses in Massachusetts that count on foreign workers to keep their
seasonal businesses open.
Mr. President, I would also like to thank the conferees for
addressing potentially damaging anti-small business language in this
bill which would have allowed small business subcontracts at the
Department of Energy to be counted as prime contracts and capped all
small business contracting goals at 23 percent. Section 6023 had strong
bipartisan opposition from members of the Small Business Committees and
from other members concerned about protecting small business federal
contracting. The compromise language included in Section 6022 of the
final version of this bill lays out a process for the Small Business
Administration and the Department of Energy to expand small business
contracting.
The compromise requires the Small Business Administration and the
Department of Energy to develop a Memorandum of Understanding, MOU, on
a methodology for measuring the achievement of awarding prime contracts
and subcontracts to small businesses. It is my understanding that MOU
will in no way count the subcontracts awarded by DOE's management and
operations contractors towards DOE's prime contracting goal. Section
6022 also requires DOE and SBA to conduct a joint study of changes at
DOE that would encourage greater opportunities for small business
contracting, and it includes temporary relief for local small firms
that are facing undue burdens as a result of contracts being broken out
from large, bundled management and operations contracts.
Mr. President, the Department of Energy has the worst small business
utilization record of all Federal agencies. This compromise is an
opportunity to address the growing challenges facing small firms as a
result of contract bundling, the need for greater diligence by the
administration in its effort to meet the 23 percent government-wide
minimum goal for small business contracting, and the need for greater
management and oversight by the Department of Energy of the contracting
dollars being awarded by the Agency. I hope the administration will use
this opportunity to improve small business contracting at the DOE and
will draw on the conclusions of the ongoing studies being released by
the GAO to address the current shortfalls in small business prime
contracting and subcontracting oversight. As the ranking member of the
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I am committed to
working with the other committees of jurisdiction, including the Energy
Committee, to ensure that DOE and SBA do not undermine the intent of
Section 6022 by using this compromise language to prevent small
businesses from receiving their fair share of DOE prime contracts.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I rise today in support of H.R. 1268, the Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror,
and Tsunami Relief.
First, while this bill addresses many areas of concern, it is
primarily focused on providing the American military sufficient funds
for its mission to aid Afghanistan in creating a strong and stable
nation and to ensure the security necessary to rebuild Iraq.
Provisions in the bills to support American soldiers and their
families, such as increasing the death benefit gratuity for soldiers
killed this year to $100,000 and providing all members of the armed
forces with free meals and phone service, are the right thing to do. We
will no longer force men and women who volunteered to serve in one of
the most dangerous environments to recuperate without the support of
loved ones while charging them for their meals. Other important
provisions, such as providing more money to combat the effectiveness of
improvised explosive devices, or lED's, and providing $150 million for
the purchase of up-armored humvees, will serve to protect Americans
already operating in combat zones. The biggest danger to Americans in
uniform remains the IED; by using funds to both prevent the IED from
exploding and then ensuring that those that do go off near a humvee are
defended against, I can safely say that we are working toward the
ultimate goal of mitigating the largest source of American casualties.
I was also happy to see that the bill also requires reports on the
status of training for both the Afghan and Iraqi security forces, so
that the American public is not given arbitrary numbers of successfully
trained soldiers and policemen without an understanding of their
capabilities. Just as importantly, the bill states that the President
should submit an appropriate budget amendment for FY 2006 by September
1, 2005.
There are also some very important, non-military, provisions in this
legislation, nearly all of which I co-sponsored when it came to the
floor. All will contribute significantly to the establishment of
increased stability in regions throughout the world. For example, the
United States has done far too little to stop the genocide and
atrocities that continue to occur in Darfur, Sudan. This legislation
specifically dedicates $50 million to support efforts by the African
Union to bring a halt to the violence and another $90 million in
humanitarian assistance for refugees in the region. The United States
has hardly anything at all to create a stable and viable government in
Haiti, this in spite of the fact that the country is only miles from
our shore. This legislation provides $20 million to assist in efforts
at institution-building, law enforcement, and democracy promotion.
Significantly, this legislation is the only vehicle available for
disaster assistance to the countries affected by the tsunami in the
Indian Ocean. I need not remind anyone that this was likely the most
catastrophic natural event in recent history, with nearly 200,000
people in eight countries dying in just a few hours. Over 100,000 are
still missing. Thousands had their homes, family, and livelihoods swept
away. The cost in dollars is easily in the hundreds of billions.
It is imperative that the United States step up to the plate and
assist in repair and reconstruction. We have pledged almost a billion
dollars to this effort, and this legislation provides an initial $656
million to help people get back on their feet. A substantial portion of
the funding is directed toward repairing replacing essential services--
roads and highways, telecommunications and energy infrastructure, and
water and food distribution systems, and so on. But portions of the
funding are dedicated to other critical issues that will allow these
countries to get back to baseline--programs designed to assist women
with new economic opportunities now that they have lost the provider in
their families, programs designed to assist individuals with mental or
physical disabilities as a result of the tsunami, programs designed to
protect orphaned children from violence and exploitation and reunify
them with extended or immediate families, programs to provide loans,
business advice and training in job skills so new sources of income and
new businesses are developed; and programs to stop the spread of
disease, including avian flu.
This bill provides funding for many important causes which I fully
support. But let me take a few moments to discuss a few provisions
about which I have significant concerns.
First, the conference committee removed a provision that I had
included in the Senate version of the bill that would have helped
Federal courts cover costs associated with the substantial increase in
immigration related cases filed as a result of recent border
enforcement efforts. I strongly support efforts to enhance our border
security--indeed, I cosponsored an amendment to this bill that was
offered by Senator Robert Byrd that provided funding to hire an
additional 500 border patrol agents and have consistently voted to
allocate additional resources to secure our Nation's border. However,
we must also consider the impact that these enforcement measures are
having on our Nation's courts, especially in districts along the border
region. Since 1995, immigration cases in the 5 southwestern border
districts--the District
[[Page S4836]]
of Arizona, District of New Mexico, Southern District of California,
and Southern and Western Districts of Texas--have grown approximately
828 percent. In 2003, overall immigration filings in U.S. District
Courts jumped 22 percent, and in 2004 they jumped 11 percent. Of these
cases, 69 percent came from these 5 districts.
We can't just fund the enforcement side without considering what will
happen to these individuals once they are detained. This approach not
only places a tremendous burden on our courts, but it also threatens
our national security by limiting the ability of the courts and
probation services to provide adequate case oversight.
Second, the REAL ID Act, which was attached to the bill by the House
of Representatives, was included in the final version of the bill.
Although the conference committee made several minor modifications to
lessen the impact of these provisions, I remain strongly opposed to
this section of the bill. The REAL ID Act never received a hearing in
the Senate and Republicans on the conference committee refused to
consult with their Democrat counterparts on this language. The bill
make it more difficult for legitimate asylum applicants to obtain a
safe haven in the United States and authorizes the Secretary of
Homeland Security to waive all legal requirements which could impede
the construction of a fence along the border with Mexico. It also
repeals provisions of the recently-passed Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which implemented the recommendations
of the 9/11 Commission. Specifically, the intelligence reform bill
charged the Department of Transportation, in consultation with the
States, with promulgating ``minimum standards'' for State driver's
licenses in order to prevent fraud or abuse. Without enhancing our
national security, the REAL ID Act repeals this section and replaces it
with a system that will be extremely difficult and costly for States to
implement. I know that these provisions will have a significant impact
on my home State of New Mexico, and it is my hope that Congress will be
able to revisit this legislation in the near future.
Thus, while there are some aspects of this supplemental request that
remain troubling to me and many of my Senate colleagues, I know that by
supporting this bill we are working to create a more peaceful and
stable world community and meet more of the needs of our brave soldiers
serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will vote for the conference report
because I believe we have few higher priorities than the safety and
well-being of our troops deployed in harm's way. This legislation is
critical to the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, providing funding
to purchase life-saving armor, replenishing stocks of spare parts and
ammunition, and increasing the government's financial support for the
families of America's fallen heroes.
Probably one of the most significant provisions in this legislation
is the $308 million added above what the President proposed to ensure
that more humvees deployed in combat are adequately armored. Just as in
the previous 2 years, I have been deeply troubled by continuing
shortfalls in the administration's plans for outfitting our troops with
the protection they need. Over 1,600 U.S. troops have been killed in
Iraq since the beginning of the war in March 2003. And rarely a day
goes by that one does not hear about an improvised explosive device or
roadside bomb seriously injuring an American there. This conference
report is a step in the right direction to better prepare our troops
for these threats, but more always needs to be done to ensure greater
security for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. We owe it to
them to make sure they have the resources to protect themselves as best
they can.
And we owe it to their families here at home to make sure that their
sacrifices are so honored. This bill also authorizes the Department of
Defense to increase to $500,000 the amount that can be paid to
surviving families of deceased servicemen and women. In addition, this
bill rightly includes traumatic injury insurance of up to $100,000 for
military personnel seriously wounded in action. These provisions are
the least we as Americans can provide to the families of our men and
women in uniform who are giving so much to our Nation.
Not all of this bill directly pertains to our troops deployed in Iraq
and Afghanistan, however. And while I support many of these provisions,
there are some sections that give me pause. On the positive side, I am
pleased by the conference committee's decision to retain the amendment
put forth by Senator Warner to stop the Navy from downsizing its
aircraft carrier fleet. We must retain the ability to quickly project
power around the globe, particularly as emerging powers in Central and
East Asia amass powerful fleets in direct challenge to U.S. Naval
supremacy. And this amendment rightly puts the brakes on the
administration's efforts to cut too deeply into our Navy's critical
assets.
In terms of homeland security, this bill adds an additional $450
million over the President's proposal for more border security and
customs agents. I support these additional resources and am pleased the
conferees included them in this bill.
But this bill is not perfect. Indeed, I have some serious concerns
about provisions that are included in the conference report before us.
I also have concerns that certain important issues are not addressed by
this bill.
First, I am greatly disappointed that the conferees decided to
include the majority of the text that makes up a bill called the REAL
ID Act. There are many troubling provisions in this language--virtually
the same language that Republican members of the House tried to push
through as part of last year's intelligence reform legislation. At that
time, the 9/11 Commission opposed its inclusion. And the Senate
managers of the bill prevented it from being included in conference.
But now, the vast majority of the REAL ID language has been included
in the conference report before us. Although I do not sit on the Senate
Judiciary Committee, I am concerned that this package of provisions was
never debated within that panel. I would note that an effort to include
the language in the Senate version of the emergency supplemental was
withdrawn after bipartisan opposition to its inclusion.
This bill's REAL ID provisions, among other things, would require
State departments of motor vehicles to verify documents used to obtain
drivers licenses. This is an unfunded mandate--the language included in
this bill does not specifically appropriate any amount for this
purpose. Reportedly, the National Conference of State Legislatures
estimates that REAL ID will cost States between $500 million and $700
million over 5 years to implement. Many States are already dealing with
budget shortfalls. What impact will this additional financial have on
States' abilities to provide basic services for their residents?
These licensing regulations also raise privacy issues, as DMVs will
gain access to much private information. All Americans, when renewing
or obtaining a new license, will be subject to these provisions.
Certainly, some reform with respect to identification documents might
be needed. But this partisan and hasty approach is not the right way to
do it--especially when State governments are currently working to
establish reasonable standards for reform that can be implemented.
These are only two of the many troubling provisions of the REAL ID
language, which deal with issues as far reaching as eligibility for
asylum in the U.S. and border security.
I also have concerns about issues that were left out of this bill.
For example, this bill does not include language addressing the
practice of renditions--the process whereby the U.S. has reportedly
transferred foreign prisoners, detainees, or combatants to other
countries for interrogation purposes. Often, the countries to which
these people have been transferred are known to practice torture. Yet,
few specifics are known about the practice of renditions.
Nor does this bill address important issues of accountability, such
as the extension of the lifespan of the Special Inspector General for
Iraq Reconstruction, or the SIGIR. The SIGIR has performed admirably,
but its doors will be closed years before it can complete its task of
accounting for all American taxpayer money devoted to the
reconstruction of Iraq. Senator Feingold filed an amendment that would
have fixed this problem. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership
failed to support
[[Page S4837]]
his efforts, and the amendment was ruled non-germane--even though the
SIGIR had originally been created and its authority subsequently
extended as part of an emergency supplemental bill.
All in all, this bill is a mixed bag. But it contains critically
important provisions to support our troops--specifically, it will help
provide some of the equipment our troops need in order to finish their
jobs safely. Moreover, it will help further the process of training
Iraqi Army and police forces so that U.S. troops can finish their jobs
and come home. I believe that it is incumbent upon this body to swiftly
pass this spending bill. That is why I intend to support it when it
comes to a vote.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today the Senate considers the conference
report on the President's emergency supplemental appropriations bill.
Unfortunately, the REAL ID Act which had been attached in the House
bill was included in the final measure.
The REAL ID Act should have been debated as a part of comprehensive
immigration reform. By attaching REAL ID to a must pass spending
measure, the critical process of vetting the bill in committee was
circumvented and an opportunity for discussion and debate, which is
essential for effective legislation, was denied.
There are many concerns I have with REAL ID in addition to the
process used to bring it to the floor. First, the measure is an
unfunded mandate to the States. Furthermore, unless every State
complies, the Federal Government will have to mandate the creation of a
national ID. Between the creation of a new database and approval
system, training for DMV workers, and struggling State budgets, REAL ID
will impose real costs.
More importantly, a database of this type will open up many privacy
concerns and there must be security safeguards in place to prevent the
gathered information from being obtained inappropriately.
Many States, including Rhode Island, have already passed legislation
setting their own requirements for driver's license recipients. The
Federal Government should not impinge upon the States' ability to
decide who can and cannot drive on their roads, especially without the
funding to support the idea. REAL ID will put more drivers on the road
without licenses and without insurance.
I am also concerned about another provision of the REAL ID Act that
would allow for the waiver of all laws--Federal, State, and local--to
build barriers and roads at our borders. As a strong advocate of
environmental protection, I am troubled about blanket waivers from
environmental laws like the Endangered Species Act and the National
Environmental Policy Act.
The REAL ID Act, at its best, should be a catalyst for discussion of
comprehensive immigration reform. That discussion cannot take place in
a forum primarily devoted to quickly releasing funds for our troops
around the world and veterans returning home.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, the emergency supplemental
appropriations conference report before us today is a critically
important piece of legislation. This bill will ensure that our troops
in Iraq, who put their lives on the line for us every day, are properly
equipped and protected. It provides vital funds to support the
emergence of a free Afghanistan, and it provides much-needed funding
for tsunami relief.
I am supporting this conference report even though I strongly oppose
the REAL ID provisions that are also included. The REAL ID Act is a
complete overhaul of our immigration laws that would, amongst other
things, impose complicated new driver's license requirements on States,
make it harder for refugees at risk of persecution to be granted
asylum, and suspend all environmental laws along the U.S. border.
This language will result in the most significant changes to our
immigration policy in 10 years. While we have long recognized the need
for comprehensive immigration reform, this debate has no business
taking place as part of an emergency spending bill. Legislation of this
importance deserves to be the subject of focused study and serious
debate. Passing REAL ID without careful consideration is reckless,
irresponsible, and a disservice to the American people.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, in this post-9/11 world, it has never
been so important to work seriously and carefully on efforts to enhance
our border security.
We in New York are particularly cognizant of the need for
comprehensive efforts to make our borders, our ports, our critical
infrastructure, and our airports as secure as possible. Like no other
place in America, like no other place in the world, New Yorkers I
represent know what terrorism looks like, feels like, and costs to our
communities, the economy and our psyches.
It is crystal clear to almost everyone that there are many questions
that need to be answered about how we secure our borders. As a member
of the Judiciary Committee and a Senator from New York, an enormous
amount of my time and energy is devoted to just those questions. And
indeed, I don't think we are doing enough to secure our borders. But
sneaking drastic changes to our immigration laws into a must-pass
measure supporting our troops is not the way to address these Issues.
Opinions are mixed about how effective the REAL ID bill will be in
enhancing national security. But regardless of what you might think
about the merits of the bill itself--I, for instance, have serious
concerns regarding the impact of its asylum provisions--this is an
issue that requires serious debate. Instead, the Republican leadership
has completely bypassed the committee process and slipped this
controversial and complicated proposal into the emergency supplemental
bill, which we will have to approve because it provides the necessary
support of our men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as
the vital relief for the tsunami victims abroad.
Immigrants have built New York and this country from the bottom up.
Our country was founded by and made stronger by the hard work of
immigrants from all different countries, cultures, religions and races.
I marvel how our new immigrants remake our land, making it a better
place, even as they become new Americans. Just think of how many
recent, and expectant immigrants now serve in our Armed Forces, some of
whom have made the ultimate sacrifice for our Nation in Iraq and
Afghanistan. I am proud that New York is still an epicenter for
immigrants. Just like my ancestors came over from Europe many decades
ago, the new generations of people just like us are beginning to take
root, making our country, our economy, and our culture that much
stronger and diverse.
So any bill that makes such dramatic changes to our immigration laws
should be looked at carefully and considered judiciously. We must never
bend in our determination to secure our borders and protect our Nation
from harm. But nor can we forget what makes our Nation great. These
debates and decisions must be reasoned debates, not take-it-or-leave-it
ultimatums strategically devised for partisan political benefit.
There are provisions in this bill, for instance, that will make it
harder for people persecuted on the basis of their race, religion,
national origin, or gender abroad to pursue asylum and the American
dream.
There are other provisions that would allow bail bondsmen to play
judge and determine which immigrants are dangers to the community.
These are major changes to our laws, and we have a system to debate,
discuss and vote on such changes. No bill raising so many questions on
issues of such fundamental importance should escape an honest debate in
the Senate. I urge my Republican colleagues to rethink this strategy
and allow the Senate to do its work the right way.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am pleased that we are voting on the
final passage of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for
Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005.
I commend my colleagues, especially Chairman Cochran, for working
diligently to see that the Senate act quickly to address the needs of
our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and emergency humanitarian needs
worldwide. Americans everywhere are grateful for the efforts of our
troops who fight on the front lines of the war on terror. They have
made personal sacrifices for the liberty of all Americans,
[[Page S4838]]
and we must support them by providing them with the very best
equipment.
The conference report includes much needed funding for humanitarian
assistance in areas of the world devastated by famine, disaster and
war.
I am especially pleased that we have provided $90 million for
international disaster and famine assistance for Darfur, Sudan and
other African countries including Ethiopia, Liberia, Uganda, and the
Democratic Republic of Congo. The situation in Sudan remains dire and
there are several other countries in the region that will also greatly
benefit from these funds.
The conference report also includes necessary peacekeeping dollars
that will address the security needs of millions of oppressed people.
First, it provides $50 million in funding for the African Union mission
in Darfur. It is the experience of many on the ground in Darfur that
atrocities do not occur when AU troops are present, and this funding
should facilitate an expansion of their mission. I thank my colleagues,
Senators Corzine, DeWine, Durbin, Leahy and McConnell for their
tireless work to get this money included in the bill. Security is
paramount to ensuring an end to the violence that persists in Sudan,
killing an estimated 15,000 people per month.
Second, the conference report directs $680 million to general
peacekeeping operations in other war-torn areas worldwide. The United
States contributions to these missions are important to security and
stability on a global level.
I commend the inclusion of $5 million for assisting internally
displaced persons in Afghanistan and $120.4 million for migration and
refugee assistance for worldwide refugee protection and for the
President to meet his goals for refugee admissions this year.
While all of these earmarks will provide much needed protection and
assistance to the world's poorest and oppressed people, I am extremely
disappointed that the Darfur accountability amendment was stripped in
conference. The amendment which was included by the Senate, would have
placed targeted sanctions in the form of a travel ban and asset freezes
on individuals who are committing war crimes and crimes against
humanity in Darfur. It would also have directed the administration to
pursue certain policies at the U.N., including multilateral sanctions
and an arms embargo against Sudan as well as the establishment of a no-
fly zone over Darfur.
I appreciate my Senate colleagues' support of this measure and look
forward to working together to move this as stand-alone legislation in
the near future. It is my hope that the administration will publicly
address their concerns with this bill so that we may move swiftly to
enact the very important provisions that will help alleviate the
ongoing genocide.
I am also disappointed that such sweeping immigration provisions were
included in this bill without adequate debate or scrutiny. What
concerned me most of all about the REAL ID bill is that it undermines
America's moral authority by turning away legitimate asylum seekers
fleeing tyranny. This language was added based on a claim that our
asylum system can be used by terrorists to enter the country. This is
not the case.
However, I would like to thank my colleague Chairman Specter for
working diligently to successfully soften some of the harsher language
in the asylum provisions. As originally drafted, the REAL ID Act would
have created significant and additional barriers for refugees fleeing
persecution to obtain asylum.
REAL ID would have greatly increased a refugees' burden of proof to
establish their eligibility for asylum. At the whim of an immigration
judge's discretion, refugees would be required to produce corroborative
evidence of their claims of persecution or prove that the central
intent of their persecutors was to punish them for their race, religion
or political beliefs even in cases where the refugee's testimony was
already credible.
The facts are quite obvious: persecutors are not going to issue
official documents explaining their actions. In addition, proving the
mindset of those who carry out killings, torture and other abuse is
next to impossible. Even if this were possible, those who flee a
country often times don't have time to gather up the proper
documentation they may later need in an American immigration court.
The incorporated revisions would make an immigration judge take into
account the totality of the circumstances when evaluating an applicants
claim and would not be able to discard a claim for subjective reasons.
I want to clarify that the triers of fact must consider all relevant
factors and base any adverse credibility determinations on a
consideration of all of those factors. The findings must be reasonable.
It would not be reasonable to find a lack of credibility based on
inconsistencies, inaccuracies or falsehoods that do not go to the heart
of the asylum claim without other evidence that the asylum applicant is
attempting to deceive the trier of fact.
I also understand that when assessing demeanor, triers of fact must
take into consideration the individual circumstances of the asylum
applicant, such as his or her cultural background, educational
background, gender, state of mind, history of trauma, and other
factors.
I remain concerned about how the asylum provisions will affect the
adjudication of claims by children. Adjudicators cannot realistically
hold these children to the same burden of proof and standards of
persuasion as adult asylum-seekers. For example, children reasonably
cannot be expected to pinpoint a central motive of persecution and
provide corroborating evidence of their persecution.
I conclude by pointing out that applications for asylum have fallen
from 140,000 to just over 30,000 per year, and the numbers of those who
are actually granted asylum has fallen to about 10,000 per year.
Individuals fleeing persecution must already meet a high burden of
proof and undergo intensive security measures to obtain asylum. While I
recognize the importance of security in the post-9/11 environment, I am
committed to ensuring legitimate asylum-seekers a haven without
imposing unrealistic barriers.
In addition to the asylum revisions, I am extremely pleased that we
were able to secure the repeal of the arbitrary 1,000 annual cap placed
on refugees fleeing coercive population control. This, along with the
lifting of the asylum adjustment cap, will enable those who have fled
persecution, including forced abortions, to become legal permanent
residents and enjoy the security and benefits that go along with that
status.
The importance of the supplemental bill is not to be understated. Our
troops are valiantly protecting human freedoms and deserve our support.
The humanitarian crises around the world resulting from natural
disasters such as the tsunami, and resulting from human rights
atrocities such as genocide, cannot be ignored by a country such as
ours. I thank my colleagues for working to get this bill to the
President.
Iraq Security Forces Fund
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, an important component of this $82 billion
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations conference agreement is the $5.7
billion appropriated for the Iraq Security Forces Fund. I commend
Senators Stevens and Inouye, the chairman and ranking member of the
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, for their efforts in securing the
full budget request for this important effort. Security must be a high
priority in Iraq. The sooner the Iraqis develop their own capacity to
stabilize and secure their country, the sooner our men and women in
uniform can come home to their families.
An important part of security in Iraq involves communications
systems. The deployment of an Advanced First Responders Network, AFRN,
throughout Iraq will begin to address the current lack of mission-
critical public-safety communications capabilities. The AFRN system,
when deployed throughout Iraq, will allow for focused coordination of
security planning and execution, rapid data collection and analysis of
changing security threats, rapid coordination and deployment of
security assets to address threats, effective planning to reduce/
prevent future security threats, and a more secure environment that
will foster democracy and economic development.
The AFRN infrastructure in Iraq has been designed to address needs
[[Page S4839]]
throughout the country, including border regions and pipelines.
However, additional funding is needed to meet this objective.
Mr. President, I would like to inquire of the chairman and the
ranking member, Senators Stevens and Inouye, whether continued funding
of the AFRN could be a qualified activity within the $5.7 billion
included in the conference agreement for the Iraq Security Forces Fund?
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for
this question. Yes, I believe that funding for the AFRN could be an
eligible activity within the funding we are providing in the Iraq
Security Forces Fund. I cannot guarantee the Senator any particular
level of funding will be provided, but I do agree with him that
continued work on the AFRN is important.
Mr. INOUYE. I concur fully with the chairman.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank Senators Stevens and Inouye for their insight
into this matter.
australian nationals
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, will the Senate Majority Leader yield for a
question?
Mr. FRIST. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. KYL. I thank the distinguished Senate Majority Leader. I am
pleased to see that the Frist Amendment, adopted by the Senate during
consideration of the supplemental appropriations bill, is included in
this conference report. The Frist Amendment creates a new E-3 visa sub-
classification for Australian nationals. I would be grateful if Senator
Frist would clarify a couple of technical points relating to his
amendment. It is my understanding that the E-3 visa would not be
limited to employment that is directly related to international trade
and investment, as are the E-1 and E-2 visas. Could the Senator confirm
that this is his intention?
Mr. FRIST. I thank Senator Kyl for his question. He is correct in his
understanding that the E-3 visa would not be limited to employment that
is directly related to international trade and investment. To qualify
for an E-3 visa, an Australian national must be seeking employment in a
``specialty occupation,'' as that term is defined in the Immigration
and Nationality Act, and the U.S. employer must have obtained a
certified labor attestation from the Department of Labor. In other
respects, such as visa application procedures, periods of admission,
dependent admissions, and spousal work authorizations, the rules
applicable to the new E-3 visa will be the same as for other E visa
holders currently. Also, Australian nationals will continue to have
access to all existing categories of visas to which they are currently
entitled.
Mr. KYL. I thank the Senate Majority Leader for these few points of
clarification.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of this urgently
needed funding for our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines fighting
around the world. Specifically, I would like to thank my colleague and
friend from Mississippi, the distinguished chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, Senator Cochran, for his commitment to our
Nation's Armed Forces.
I particularly want to express my support for the provision dealing
with DD(X) destroyers. This bill includes a critical provision to
prohibit the use of funds by the Navy in conducting a ``one shipyard''
acquisition strategy to procure next-generation DD(X) destroyers.
The Navy serves not only as a central pillar of our Nation's military
strategy, but also as a symbol of American strength abroad. It is
crucial that not only do we have the most capable fleet, but also that
we have sufficient numbers of ships . . . and shipbuilders . . . to
meet our national security requirements.
Unfortunately, the Navy has proposed to radically change the
acquisition strategy for DD(X) destroyers in such a manner as to ensure
that there is only one shipyard involved in major surface combatant
production. If implemented, the Navy's ill-advised proposal to go
forward with a ``one shipyard'' competition for DD(X) between General
Dynamics' Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME, and Northrop Grumman Ship
Systems in Pascagoula, MS, would jeopardize our national security and
our industrial capacity.
We need to move forward with DD(X) at both shipyards, as originally
planned. Holding a competition will inevitably delay DD(X) acquisition
and increase the costs to taxpayers.
The fleet needs the capabilities of a DD(X) destroyer that will
provide sustained, offensive, and precise firepower at long ranges to
support forces ashore and to conduct independent attacks against land
targets. These systems will provide a naval or joint task force
commander with the multimission flexibility to destroy a wide variety
of land targets while simultaneously countering maritime threats.
Moreover, DD(X) will take advantage of advanced stealth technologies,
which will render it significantly less detectable and more survivable
to enemy attack than the current class of ships. It will also operate
with significantly smaller crews than current destroyers.
Conducting a competition for these ships, or implementing a ``one
shipyard'' acquisition strategy further exacerbates the decline in
America's shipbuilding employment that has shrunk by an overwhelming 75
percent since the late 1980s.
This supplemental appropriations bill continues to build upon the
work many of my colleagues and I during the past several months to
thwart the Navy's attempt to have only one shipyard capable of building
DD(X)s. On March 1, I joined 19 of my Senate colleagues, in concert
with Senator Lott, to send a letter to President Bush expressing our
strong opposition to any ``winner take all'' competition for DD(X).
We all agreed that any instability or delay in the DD(X) program at
this time could lead to the permanent exodus of skilled men and women
from the last remaining shipyards that produce our complex surface
combatants. Construction of surface combatants at a single shipyard
would affect the Navy's ability to keep costs lower in the long term.
The recently-passed Senate budget resolution included a sense of the
Senate on the acquisition DD(X) that correctly emphasized that the
national security of the United States is best served by a competitive
industrial base consisting of at least two shipyards capable of
constructing major surface combatants.
The Congress has spoken very loudly, and very clearly on this rapid
change in direction. It is in our national interest to have two major
surface combatant shipyards. This appropriations bill is good for the
Navy, good for our shipbuilders, and good for our Nation.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and funding for our
men and women in uniform serving around the world.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I will vote to support the conference
report on H.R. 1268, the fiscal year 2005 Supplemental Appropriations
bill, although I have serious reservations about the process that was
used to attach the REAL ID Act to legislation urgently needed to ensure
our troops are adequately funded.
I am voting for this legislation because it provides needed support
to our troops in combat, additional border patrol agents to secure our
porous frontiers, vital relief to areas affected by the recent tsunami
in the Indian Ocean, and important disaster relief here at home.
My colleagues have noted that this legislation funds important needs
for our military, from additional up-armored humvees to increased death
benefits for those who have lost their lives in service to our Nation
in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I agree with my colleagues that it is vital that we get these
resources to our men and women in uniform without delay.
However, I have serious concerns about the process by which
controversial immigration provisions were attached to the bill.
And I want to again express my opposition to the inclusion of the
REAL ID Act--despite the negotiated changes during conference--because
an emergency supplemental is not the place for the Congress to enact
substantive immigration provisions.
The REAL ID provisions included in this legislation will bring about
significant legal and policy changes in the areas of asylum law,
judicial review,
[[Page S4840]]
deportation of individuals alleged links to terrorist activities,
driver's licenses and the border fence.
And while I recognize that there were modifications to the REAL ID
Act during conference--including provisions relating to bounty
hunters--we are still talking major changes to our immigration laws and
I don't believe the Senate was given adequate opportunity to review,
consider, debate and amend these issues.
Any voices of opposition to the REAL ID Act were all but silenced. I
was a member of the conference committee, but I was not able to see the
final language until the bill was ready to be filed and it was too late
to do anything. Essentially, the minority was shut out of the
conference negotiations on this bill.
The REAL ID Act wasn't the only immigration language added to this
bill in which the Democrats were shut out.
For instance, the Republican leadership added language at the
eleventh hour, postcloture, which creates a new temporary worker
program for 10,500 Australian workers.
So each year now we will see an influx of 10,500 Australian workers,
along with their families. Assuming that each of these professional
workers brings their spouse and child, in reality we could be seeing an
increase of 31,500 individuals each year--in addition to the other
categories of professional workers, such as H-1B and L-1 workers.
At what point do we stop creating special carve outs for different
groups of people or different countries? And after Australia, what
country is going to come to us and ask for special exceptions to our
immigration laws?
I am pleased that the conference committee came to a reasonable
compromise on the issue of funding additional Border Patrol agents. The
conference report makes available $635 million to address understaffing
at our borders.
While this is a reduction from the amount provided by the Senate, it
will provide for 500 new Border Patrol agents, 50 additional
Immigration and Customs enforcement investigators, 168 detentions
officers, as well as needed support staff and construction of
additional detention space.
This is a good start toward meeting the goals of the Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, which authorizes the hiring of
2,000 new Border Patrol agents. That goal was developed in concert with
the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Homeland Security
Appropriations Subcommittee to ensure that next year we continue to
hire additional agents to secure our borders. Unfortunately, President
Bush's budget for fiscal year 2006 only provides for 210 additional
agents, which is simply not enough.
I would like to briefly comment on the military construction portion
of this legislation. The House and Senate conferees included $1.128
billion to support military construction projects worldwide.
This includes $250 million for projects requested by the Army in
Alaska, Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, New York, North Carolina, and Texas,
to support Army modernization.
The bill also includes $647 million for the Army to support the
global war on terror--$38.5 million for projects in Afghanistan, $40.4
million for a prison and security fence in Cuba, $479 million for
projects in Iraq, and an additional $39 million for the design of these
projects.
In addition, there is $140 million included in the bill to support
the Marine Corps Force Structure Review Group to alleviate the overall
stress on the Marine Corps produced by deployments related to the
global war on terrorism. These projects are located in California,
North Carolina, and Djibouti.
The bill includes $141 million to support Air Force projects in
Central Command--$31 million for Afghanistan, $58 million for projects
in Iraq, $1.4 million for the United Arab Emirates, $42.5 million for
Uzbekistan, and an additional $8 million for the design of these
projects.
Let me turn to an issue that is of particular importance to me and to
my State--and that is preventing and fighting wildfires that have
struck the West with increasing regularity and intensity in recent
years.
As many of my colleagues know, southern California was hit this
winter with unusually heavy rain storms that caused severe flooding--at
this point it is the second wettest winter in Los Angeles since records
have been kept.
These storms dumped 70 to 90 inches of rain in parts of southern
California that include several national forests, causing flooding,
debris flows, and mudslides which destroyed or damaged more than 90
percent of the roads in four National Forests: Angeles National Forest;
Cleveland National Forest; Los Padres National Forest; and San
Bernardino National Forest.
The conference report provides $24.39 million in capital improvement
and maintenance funding to the Forest Service to repair those roads.
This funding will make it possible to repair roads that are vital to
firefighting efforts for thousands of acres in these forests.
We all know about the disastrous wildfires that burned in southern
California in 2003. Fires burned 739,597 acres, destroyed 3,631 homes,
and killed 24 people, according to the California Department of
Forestry.
San Bernardino Forest Supervisor Gene Zimmerman told my staff that he
has never seen the grass grow as high as it has this year, and it is
starting to turn brown--which means it could burn later this year.
Here is the biggest difference from 2003: right now, firefighters
cannot get in to the forests to contain fires. The Forest Service
estimates that 2.3 million acres of National Forest System lands are
inaccessible to ground-based fire vehicles.
The Forest Service tells me that they need to begin work immediately
on roads to allow access for the 2005 fire season. They already have
contractors working and will add to their contracts as funding is
available. They have done the necessary damage assessments to enable
immediate start up of work.
With the $24 million in this conference report, the Forest Service
can open the majority of roads to accommodate fire apparatus by July
and August, which is still the early part of this year's fire season.
I thank Chairman Cochran, Senator Byrd, Interior Subcommittee
Chairman Burns and Senator Dorgan, as well as their able staffs for
helping to secure this funding in the Senate bill.
I also thank House Chairman Lewis for working with us in the
conference committee on an issue that is crucial to preventing a repeat
of the devastating fires our State suffered in 2003.
I want to briefly highlight one last issue that is important to me,
and I believe to the prospects for peace in the Middle East.
This conference report includes a provision that I offered to provide
legal authority for a Federal agency, the Overseas Private Investment
Corporation, OPIC, to receive $10 million to help bolster economic and
infrastructure development in the Gaza Strip.
OPIC is combining forces with private organizations to build a $250
million loan fund that would be aimed at microfinance, small business,
corporate and mortgage lending to deserving businesses, firms and
entities in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.
A meeting is being held this coming week in London among the various
loan fund participants to continue sorting out appropriate financial
and legal mechanisms for distributing these funds.
As the group moves forward, this $10 million subsidy will play a
crucial role in extending OPIC political risk guarantees for loans to
deserving Palestinian business recipients and I was pleased to assist
in this process.
On a larger scale, as we begin the process of Gaza disengagement, we
need to help provide the Palestinians with real economic hope--not
continued frustration about the lack of jobs and exports.
The lack of agreed mechanisms to coordinate disengagement, developing
an agreed concept on how Palestinian security forces will take over
areas evacuated by Israeli defense forces, and permitting greater
freedom of movement, between Gaza and the West Bank, to assist with
rehabilitation efforts are just a few areas of concern.
I hope the $150 million provided by this conference report will
contribute to framing key security and economic arrangements that allow
Gaza disengagement to occur peacefully and not violently.
[[Page S4841]]
Although I am troubled by the inclusion of the REAL ID Act in this
bill, the bottom line is that it provides necessary funding to our
troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as relief to countries struck
by the Tsunami in the Indian Ocean and disasters here at home. It may
not be perfect, but it gives vital financial support to those who badly
need it.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will vote in favor of the fiscal year
2005 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations conference report. This
conference report contains important funding that gives our troops in
Afghanistan and Iraq the equipment and support they need. It also
provides additional resources to help train new Iraqi security forces
that will help speed the return of our servicemen and women.
In March, I traveled to Iraq to witness firsthand our military
operations. There is no doubt that the insurgency is strong and that
our continuing presence in Iraq, without even a goal for leaving, is
fueling it.
Therefore, our troops are in grave danger every day, as evidenced by
the tragic number of dead and wounded. Since the beginning of the Iraq
War, we have suffered more than 1,600 deaths and more than 12,000
wounded.
My trip to Iraq confirmed my fears that not enough is being done to
protect our soldiers from the threat of roadside bombs. Roadside bombs
are one of the leading causes of death in Iraq and are responsible for
70 percent of those personnel killed or wounded. That is why I am glad
that the conference report provides $60 million to rapidly field
electronic jammers that help prevent the detonation of roadside bombs.
This is consistent with the Boxer amendment that was adopted on the
floor during the Senate's consideration of the bill.
I am also pleased that the conference report provides $150 million in
additional funding for up-armored Humvees. While this is not as much as
provided by the Bayh amendment, it is still a step in the right
direction.
I will vote for this conference report, but I do so with serious
reservations about the lack of an exit strategy in Iraq and with
additional reservations about the way the REAL ID Act was attached to
this legislation.
The REAL ID Act contains sweeping changes to our immigration laws.
These provisions were not included in the President's supplemental
appropriations request, nor were they included in the Senate version of
the bill that was approved last month.
But at the insistence of the Republican leadership in the House, this
legislation was attached to the House version of the emergency
supplemental bill and then rammed through conference without the
participation of Democrats. The REAL ID Act will become law without
discussion or debate in the Senate.
The REAL ID Act contains a provision that would require states to
collect documents proving the date of birth, social security number,
principal address, and lawful immigration status for any applicant
seeking a driver's license or identification card that would be
recognized by the Federal government. States would be required to keep
these documents on hand for a minimum of 7 years, maintain this
information on a database, and allow electronic access to all other
states.
States are understandably concerned that they do not have the
capability to meet this mandate. Privacy concerns have also been
raised.
Unfortunately, we have not had the ability to fully investigate the
privacy implications and other issues related to this provision. My
State of California has worked for 3 years trying to find a workable
solution to this issue. But in the Senate, the REAL ID Act did not even
warrant a hearing. This is why the National Governors Association, the
National Council of State Legislatures, and the American Association of
Motor Vehicle Administrators all oppose this legislation.
The REAL ID Act also contains a troubling provision that allows the
Secretary of Homeland Security to waive all legal requirements--
including environmental laws--in order to build security fences along
U.S. borders. Security fences can be built without waiving
environmental laws.
So, while I will vote for this bill because it helps our brave and
courageous troops, I am deeply distressed at the way Democrats were
left out of all the immigration discussions.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am dismayed that nearly all of the
provisions of the REAL ID Act have been included in this conference
report after closed-door negotiations between House and Senate
Republicans. Democratic conferees were excluded from these
negotiations. Indeed, my staff specifically asked the conferees for the
majority to be included in negotiations on these far-reaching
provisions--which have never received Judiciary Committee
consideration--but our request was ignored.
I oppose the inclusion of these provisions for a number of reasons.
First and foremost, this is not the way we should be legislating
comprehensive changes to our immigration laws. The Judiciary Committee
never considered them. The Senate never voted on them when the
supplemental appropriations bill was being debated. Indeed, Senator
Isakson offered an amendment that included the text of REAL ID but then
withdrew it, reportedly under pressure from his own leadership. Many of
us believed the Senate would vote down the Isakson amendment,
especially considering that six Republican Senators had joined six
Democratic Senators in writing to the majority leader to oppose
including REAL ID in the supplemental appropriations bill.
Second, I am concerned that the REAL ID Act will cause great hardship
for asylum seekers. In the guise of preventing terrorists from
obtaining asylum--which is forbidden under current law--this conference
report raises the standard of proof for all asylum seekers. The REAL ID
Act's asylum provisions are opposed by a wide variety of religious
organizations from across the political spectrum, as well as advocates
for refugees and asylees. The United States Conference of Catholic
Bishops has said that the asylum provisions in REAL ID would
``eviscerate the protection of asylum, thus preventing victims of
persecution from receiving safe haven in the United States.''
Third, this conference report includes the REAL ID Act's breathtaking
waiver of Federal law. The Secretary of Homeland Security will now be
empowered to waive any and all laws that may get in the way of the
construction of fences or barriers at any United States border. The
Secretary already has broad authority in this area, and to further
increase it demonstrates a lack of concern both with environmental
protection and the rule of law.
Fourth, the conference report repeals the minimum Federal standards
for driver's licenses that Congress passed only last December in the
intelligence reform bill, in response to the recommendations of the 9/
11 Commission. The Bush administration said that it preferred the
approach taken in the conference report to the approach favored by the
House, which is contained in the REAL ID Act. The House approach, now
included in this conference report, replaces the newly enacted minimum
standards with Federal mandates that I fear will be unworkable. The
administration and the States have already devoted substantial energy
to implementing the existing standards, and this conference report may
represent a step backwards in our security.
These new provisions will endanger the lives of victims of domestic
violence, including U.S. citizens. Many States currently allow victims
of abuse--who frequently are hiding from their abusers--to obtain
driver's licenses that do not list their address. This conference
report will require all licenses to bear the recipient's address;
unfortunately, it contains no exception for victims of domestic abuse
or stalking. If a victim of domestic abuse or stalking is forced to
disclose her physical residence in order to get a Federally-approved
driver's license, she risks the possibility that she and her children
will be tracked down by their abuser. For women and children fleeing
domestic abuse or stalking, the option to use an alternate address is
not a matter of convenience or preference; it can be a matter of life
or death. We must fix this residential address requirement when we
reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act later this year by creating
an exemption for victims of domestic abuse or stalking.
Fifth, the conference report would eliminate habeas corpus review for
[[Page S4842]]
aliens who have received removal orders. We have not taken such a step
in this country for more than a century, but we are taking it now,
without the Senate even considering the measure.
Overall, the REAL ID provisions in this conference report need a much
wider airing and consideration before enactment. Unfortunately,
Republican conferees agreed to exclude the Democrats from consideration
of these proposals and a group of Senate and House appropriators have
agreed to change our immigration laws in profound ways.
On a much more favorable note, I am pleased that the conference
report included, with minor modifications, the Senate-passed provision
to provide relief to the small and seasonal businesses across our
nation that rely on temporary foreign workers who come here on H-2B
visas. I cosponsored the Senate amendment, offered by Senator Mikulski,
to make additional visas available for aliens who wish to perform
seasonal work in the United States. For the second year in a row, the
statutory cap on such H-2B visas was met before businesses that need
additional summer employees were even eligible to apply for visas. This
has hurt businesses across the country, and this amendment will provide
needed relief.
In Vermont, the main users of these visas are hotels, inns and
resorts that have a busy summer season. I have heard from dozens of
businesses in Vermont over the past year that have struggled mightily
to manage without temporary foreign labor. I know that the Lake
Champlain Chamber of Commerce, the Vermont Lodging & Restaurant
Association and many small businesses in Vermont are vitally concerned
and expect that similar associations and businesses in other States
are, as well.
Indeed, a wide range of industries use these visas in other States. I
imagine that nearly all Senators have heard from a constituent who has
been harmed by the sudden shortage of H-2B visas, and fear that they
will go out of business if Congress does not act to make more visas
available.
The conference report does not raise the cap on the program, but
rather allows those who had entered the U.S. in previous years through
the H-2B program to return. These are, by definition, people who came
to the U.S. legally and returned to their own countries as the law
requires. The amendment also addresses the concerns some members have
expressed about fraud.
I have been working to solve this crisis for more than a year. I
joined last year with a substantial bipartisan coalition in introducing
S.2252, the Save Summer Act of 2004. Senator Kennedy was the lead
sponsor of the bill, which had 18 cosponsors, including 8 Republicans.
The bill would have added 40,000 visas for the current fiscal year,
providing relief to those summer-oriented businesses that had never
even had the opportunity to apply for visas. Unfortunately, that bill
was opposed by a number of Republican Senators and never received a
vote. Our constituents suffered the consequences, and I am gratified
that we are prepared to provide relief.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, thousands of men and women are proudly
serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. While the majority will return home to
their loved ones, more than 1,700 have paid the ultimate sacrifice to
their country, and nearly 13,000 have been wounded in action. Even
after Iraq's historic elections in January, violence continues on a
daily basis with no end in sight to the insurgency.
Today, the Senate is preparing to approve another massive
supplemental appropriations request from the Bush administration to
fund ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The most recent
request of $82 billion makes it the second largest supplemental
appropriations measure Congress has ever passed and brings the total
amount of appropriated funds to $275 billion.
I support this supplemental request because I firmly believe that
Congress has an obligation to provide our troops with all the resources
they need to complete their mission. While I am deeply troubled by the
Bush administration's continued practice of funding our efforts in Iraq
and Afghanistan through supplemental appropriations requests rather
than the normal annual appropriations process, the bill contains too
many important resources for our troops not to support it.
This bill includes additional funding above the President's request
for essential items such as up-armored Army Humvees, add-on vehicle
armor kits, night vision equipment, and radio jammers that disrupt
remote-controlled bombs used by Iraqi insurgents. In addition, Congress
recognizes the extraordinary sacrifices our soldiers are making in
defense of freedom by increasing the amount of life insurance
servicemembers can purchase, as well as the one-time death gratuity a
soldier's surviving family members receives.
Having said that, I have deep concerns about this most recent
supplemental request. For over 2 years, American soldiers have been
shouldering most of the peace-keeping burden in Iraq. While no one
dismisses the contributions being made by coalition members, once
again, I ask President Bush to reach out to our allies so that our
efforts in Iraq are truly an international effort. The entire world has
much to gain by a secure and peaceful Iraq, and other nations should do
their fair share because we ask even more of our brave men and women in
uniform.
While I am supportive of quick action on funding for U.S. troops, I
must express my strong opposition to the way the Republican leadership
is forcing approval of far-reaching driver license legislation as part
of this bill. There has been no real opportunity for debate of the
``REAL ID'' amendment. Its inclusion in this must-pass bill subverts
the work of the Regulatory Negotiation Advisory Committee that was
established in last year's intelligence overhaul bill to provide a
thoughtful and carefully crafted approach to driver's license
legislation. Because we are now faced with a conference report on
emergency funding, no further amendments will be permitted and Senators
must vote yes or no on the entire package.
The REAL ID amendment will saddle the States with a $500 million
unfunded mandate over the next 5 years, while at the same time,
complicating the issuing and re-issuing of drivers licenses. State
employees will be required to assume the duties of the Federal
Immigration and Naturalization Service at a time when States are
already reeling from Federal cuts in Medicaid, education, and community
development funding. With no opportunity for amendments or expert
testimony, Congress is being required to establish what amounts to a
national ID card. While the goal of establishing more secure driver's
licenses in the post-9/11 world is vitally important, it should be the
responsibility of the Advisory Committee. Forcing this ill-considered
amendment past Congress on the back of an unrelated bill that provides
needed funds for our troops is wrong and a disservice to the American
people.
I am uncomfortable conducting Senate business in this manner,
particularly when it comes to issues that affect the security of our
personal identity. These provisions were attached to a vital
appropriations bill before authorizing Senate committees of
jurisdiction had an opportunity to properly scrutinize the content,
conduct hearings, and pose questions to administration officials and
other interested individuals. Even more astounding, Democrats were not
included in negotiations to determine the immigration provisions of
this bill.
On matters as important as immigration reform and homeland security,
it is misguided and short-sighted to pass legislation in this ad hoc
fashion. Forcing Senators to support funding for our troops by voting
in favor of legislation they may oppose is not in the best interest of
our country.
I have deep reservations about some of the provisions included in
this bill, and I hope they can be reconsidered as measures apart from
this supplemental bill. However, I will vote in favor of providing
additional funds for our troops. Our first priority must be to ensure
our troops have the necessary tools to finish their mission in Iraq and
Afghanistan as swiftly and as safely as possible.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to address the provisions of
the conference report to H.R. 1268, the Iraq and Afghanistan Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act, concerning
[[Page S4843]]
small business contracting at the Department of Energy.
As chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship, I am concerned that, although the conference report
did not contain a substantive change to the Small Business Act's prime
contracts goaling requirements, it does contain a provision addressing
small business contracting. I remain deeply disappointed that H.R.
1268, an emergency appropriations measure, includes targeted language
dealing with the Department of Energy's small business contracting.
Numerous groups and individuals, including the SBA Administrator and
the SBA Chief Counsel for Advocacy, wrote to Congress in opposition to
substantive changes to small business prime contracting goals.
As a result of inclusion of this provision, the Congressional small
business committees prepared a joint statement to be submitted in both
the House and the Senate. Chairman Manzullo of the House Small Business
already filed this Statement in the House prior to the vote on the
conference report for H.R. 1268. I ask unanimous consent to have
printed in the Record the following statement.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Joint Statement Concerning Small Business Contracting Provisions in
H.R. 1268
(by Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Chair of the Senate Committee on Small
Business and Entrepreneurship, and Congressman Donald R. Manzullo,
Chairman, House Committee on Small Business)
Section 6022 of H.R. 1268, as adopted in the Conference
Report, H. Rep. 109-72, contains certain provisions
concerning small business contracting at the Department of
Energy. These provisions were inserted as a substitute for
Section 6023 of the Senate version of H.R. 1268. Section
6023, among other things sought to amend the Small Business
Act to authorize counting of small business subcontracts at
the Department of Energy's large prime contractors for
purposes of reporting small business prime contracting
results. Because the substitute language was not adopted by
Congress through regular legislative proceedings in the
Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship and
the House Committee on Small Business but was adopted anew
during the House-Senate conference, the committees of
jurisdiction take this opportunity to provide guidance
generally provided through their reports to Senators and
Representatives prior to their vote on the Conference Report,
and to affected Federal agencies prior to their
implementation of the Conference Report if adopted.
In subsections 6022 (a) and (b), the language chosen to
replace Section 6023 in the Conference Report directs the
Department of Energy and the Small Business Administration to
enter into a Memorandum of Understanding for reporting small
business prime contracts and subcontracts at the Department
of Energy. This replacement language does not change the
Small Business Act's clear distinction between prime
contracts and subcontracts, does not amend the statutory
small business prime contracting goal requirements which are
binding on the Department of Energy, and does not obviate
Congressional and regulatory policies against contract
bundling. This language does not repeal the President's
Executive Order 13360 directing the Department of Energy to
comply with its separate statutory prime contracting and
subcontracting goals for awards to small businesses owned by
service-disabled veterans. Any interpretation to the contrary
would be unreasonable and contrary to Congressional intent.
In subsection 6022(c), the replacement language mandates a
study of changes to management prime contracts at the
Department of Energy to encourage small business prime
contracting opportunities. The object of the study is to
examine the feasibility of establishing a procurement agency
relationship between the management prime contractors and the
Department of Energy in accordance with the requirements of
Federal procurement laws, Federal procurement regulations,
the ``Federal norm'' of government contracting as recognized
by the Comptroller General, and applicable judicial precedent
such as U.S. West Communications, Inc. v. United States, 940
F.2d 622 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Finally, in subsection 6022(d), the replacement language
imposes certain requirements upon the Department of Energy
concerning break-outs of services from large prime contracts
for awards to small businesses. First, the Secretary of
Energy is required to consider whether services performed
have been previously provided by a small business concern.
This requirement is for acquisition planning purposes only,
and shall not be construed as imposing a restriction of any
kind on the ability of the Department of Energy to break out
its large prime contracts for award to small businesses.
Congress recognizes that most of work currently contracted by
the Department of Energy to its large prime contractors has
never been historically performed by small businesses.
However, this does not waive the application of the Small
Business Act, the President's Executive Order 13360, or the
President's initiative against contract bundling to the
Department of Energy. Second, the Secretary of Energy is
required to consider whether small business concerns are
capable of performing under the contracts which are broken
out for award. This requirement is simply a restatement of
current statutory and regulatory requirements on contractor
responsibility. Subsection (d)(2) directs the Secretary of
Energy is required to--impose certain subcontracting
requirements. As the text plainly indicates, this provision
applies solely to small business prime contracts which were
formerly small business subcontracts for services.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a few of my thoughts
regarding the Iraq/Afghanistan supplemental appropriations bill that
the Senate is expected to pass today. In particular, I wanted to
discuss the bill's important provisions that would improve the H-2B
visa program and provide timely relief for seasonal businesses in my
State and across the country.
First, let me express my appreciation to my dear friend from
Maryland, Senator Mikulski, who has been a tireless fighter for the
seasonal employers in her State. She and I have worked together on this
issue for several months, and I was proud to be the lead cosponsor of
S. 352, the ``Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act of 2005.'' Our
offices worked closely to draft this legislation, which was
incorporated into the Iraq/Afghanistan supplemental appropriations bill
when the Senate overwhelmingly approved Senator Mikulski's H-2B
amendment on April 19, 2005 by a vote of 94-6. I am pleased that this
legislation was also accepted in conference and will soon become law.
With the summer season soon upon us, I believe that the H-2B problem
needs timely relief that is fair to all seasonal employers, and the
Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act will do exactly this. As
most of us know, the 66,000 cap on H-2B visas was reached in early
January; therefore, shutting out businesses that rely on H-2B workers
in the spring and summer months. This seasonal inequity is
unjustifiable, and therefore I am pleased that the H-2B provisions
before us will divide the 66,000 cap so that 33,000 visas will be
available for the first half of the fiscal year and the other 33,000
visas will be available for the second half of the fiscal year.
To provide timely and meaningful relief, the Save Our Small and
Seasonal Businesses Act will also temporarily exempt returning H-2B
workers from the statutory cap. For fiscal years 2005 and 2006, H-2B
workers who had worked in the U.S. under an H-2B visa during the past
three fiscal years will qualify for this exemption and will not be
counted against the cap. Since the cap has already been hit for fiscal
year 2005, the H-2B provisions in the supplemental appropriations bill
will establish a ``look back''--namely, they allow the Department of
Homeland Security to estimate how many of the H-2B visas already issued
for this fiscal year were given to returning workers. This is necessary
to ensure that the Department can swiftly apply the exemption for
fiscal year 2005 and free up visas under the cap for new H-2B workers
for this summer season.
In addition, the Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act will
allow the Department of Homeland Security to waive the Administrative
Procedure Act to avoid having to issue rules and go through other
hurdles to implement the H-2B provisions before us. This is intended to
give the Department the ability to swiftly accept H-2B petitions and
implement the Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act in a timely
manner so that businesses can employ H-2B workers this summer.
As I stated earlier, I am pleased that Congress has finally acted to
improve the H-2B program and provide timely relief for small and
seasonal businesses. In my State, the H-2B program is of special
concern to the tourist and logging industries, which are both important
to the New Hampshire economy. For instance, in 2004 alone, New
Hampshire's tourism industry generated $4 billion in revenues and
nearly $140 million in rooms and meals taxes, which makes up about 25
percent of the State's total revenue stream. For a number of seasonal
employers in my State, the short-term hiring needs and the nature of
their businesses make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to
fully staff their positions with U.S. workers. H-2B workers therefore
are
[[Page S4844]]
the only lawful option to fulfill labor shortages when U.S. workers are
not available.
The Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act will help ensure that
these seasonal employers can stay in business and use a program that
has safeguards for U.S. workers. Moreover, as we try to reign in
illegal immigration and bolster respect for our laws, I believe that
Congress has shown wise judgment by passing this legislation. In
addition to strengthening anti-fraud protections, these H-2B reforms
will reward employers that follow the rules and will encourage the
lawful hiring of temporary workers instead of the hiring of illegal
aliens.
Some provisions of the Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act are
only temporary in nature and are intended to be a short-term fix. I
recognize that significantly more work must be done to improve our
immigration policies over the long term, including our guest worker
programs. We can no longer accept having immigration laws that fail to
bring about order along our borders and other points of entry or are
ignored altogether. As such, Congress must re-double its efforts to
pass comprehensive immigration reform legislation, and I look forward
to working with my colleagues on this long needed effort.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Cochran for his
leadership on this important bill for our country, as well as ranking
member Byrd.
I rise in support of H.R. 1268. I support it because it is a symbol
of our compact with our troops and their families. I support it because
it sends a signal of hope to other emerging democracies. And I support
it despite some baffling decisions taken in the conference committee to
strike key proposals to support our troops and their families.
Insurgent attacks in Iraq are on the rise. There were 45 per day in
March, 60 per day in April, and the rate of attacks this month is
topping that number. While down from the highs of the preelection
violence, this spike does not suggest a weakened or retreating
insurgency. Instead, it suggests a greater urgency is needed for even
greater support for our troops.
Last month the Washington Post quoted an unnamed American official in
our embassy in Baghdad as saying:
My strong sense is that a lot of political momentum that
was generated out of the successful election, which was sort
of like a punch in the gut to the insurgents, has worn off.
In Colorado, we have seen Army units mobilizing for their second and
third tours in Iraq; this nearly 2 years after we were assured that the
mission there had been accomplished. So it is time that we get this
assistance to our troops and to their families.
This bill includes $75.9 billion for the Department of Defense and an
additional $450 million for increased border security. Those efforts
cannot wait any longer. After having been needlessly delayed by the
inclusion of extraneous provisions in the House of Representatives, we
need to put these investments to work.
We also need to put the resources to work that are called for in this
legislation beyond Iraq. That is why it is so important that the
conference committee include the $5 million downpayment on America's
investment in a strong and independent and democratic Lebanon, free
from interference from Syria. We all remember the courageous protests
in the streets of Beirut earlier this year. Yet despite this brave show
of support for freedom, the President's supplemental included no
funding for strengthening democracy in Lebanon. That would have been a
missed opportunity, and I am delighted that the conference committee
kept this funding in the conference report.
At the same time, we need to ensure that the enormous investment our
taxpayers are making in this bill is invested carefully. We were all
painfully familiar with the reports from Iraq of security personnel
that received training only to turn and run when confronted with
insurgents, or even the instances where personnel we paid to train
turned their weapons on our own troops.
That is why I am so pleased the conference report includes the
amendment I included during our debate in the Senate regarding the
hundreds of millions of dollars we are investing in Afghan security
forces. Like our successful efforts to invest increased resources in
Colorado police officers when I served as Colorado State attorney
general, my amendment simply says that we are prepared to pay to train
Afghan forces, provided they are prepared to accept greater
accountability and standards of excellence. That is the least the
American people should expect, and I commend the conference committee
for adopting that amendment.
I also want to comment on inadequacies that I see in the conference
report. As a new Member of the Senate, I have to express my surprise at
the partisan nature of the conference committee report itself. This is
a shame because the rest of the country does not see supporting our
troops as a partisan issue. It seems to me that in a time of war, we
can do better than a conference committee that meets purely on partisan
lines, better than a conference committee that cuts out proposals that
passed this Chamber with overwhelming majorities, and better than a
conference committee that inserts a proposal to overturn decades of
American asylum policy, a policy that protects the world's most
vulnerable people, even though a Senate committee has never reviewed
that policy.
The conference report provides an increase in the fallen hero
compensation to $100,000 for all combat-related deaths, similar to
language proposed in the Senate committee. Regrettably, it omits the
Kerry amendment, which I cosponsored and which was adopted by an
overwhelming bipartisan majority of this body, that would have assured
that all the families in the military who have died since 9/11 would be
eligible to receive $100,000 in fallen hero compensation. Similarly,
just as insurgent attacks began to spike, this conference report also
omits much of the additional funding for up-armored humvees,
overwhelmingly passed in the form of an amendment sponsored by Senator
Bayh.
As we see more and more reservists and guards men and women deployed
to Iraq, the conference report omits protections for these patriots and
their families.
The amendment would have ensured that Federal employees who have been
activated in the Guard or Reserves do not suffer any loss in salary as
a result of their willingness to take on this patriotic assignment. I
do not understand why the conference deleted the payment protections
afforded these families by the Durbin amendment.
While the conference committee could not protect these important
provisions for our troops and their families, somehow this conference,
led by Members of the House of Representatives, did find time to
include within this wartime supplemental a huge proposal that has never
received a hearing in the Senate.
I will say this about the so-called REAL ID Act included in this
bill: It does nothing to address the calls of many Coloradans for
serious border strengthening.
It will not reduce the flow of undocumented immigrants who come to
the United States. Instead, it will heap an unfunded mandate on the
States, passing onto the States our duty to protect our borders. At the
same time, it denies protection to refugees who come to this country
seeking freedom from religious and political persecution.
Let's be clear what those protections are for. They are for the
world's most vulnerable people who come to this country seeking freedom
and safety from persecution. They include Christians fleeing
persecution in Egypt, democracy activists fleeing violence in West
Africa, and women fleeing abuse in Somalia. While the issue of
immigration is an issue that necessarily deserves attention in our
Nation's Capitol today, this is not the way to go.
Mr. President, it is time that we get the funding contemplated in
this legislation to our troops. It has been delayed long enough. I
intend to vote for it, and I hope my colleagues will do the same.
I yield the floor.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to see that Senators have
endorsed the conference report in a bipartisan way. We appreciate the
support that this is receiving. In every conference, there are always
issues that
[[Page S4845]]
arise that cannot be resolved to suit all Senators or all Members of
the other body. But I must say to the Senate that this was a conference
that was open, fair, and it allowed for the participation of all
conferees, both parties in the Senate, and the same with the House. We
had two sessions; one was in the Capitol over on the House side and
another was on the Senate side in the Mansfield Room, where any Senator
or any Member from the House who wanted to speak before the conference
had the right to do so. In addition, Members had the opportunity to
offer motions, amendments, or suggestions for the benefit of members of
the conference.
I was very pleased to acknowledge, at the time, the important
participation of the ranking member on the Democratic side in the
Senate committee, Senator Byrd, who took an active role in the
discussions, who offered a motion at one point to insist upon the
position of the Senate in the conference. Other members could have done
the same or argued against including any provision of the House-passed
bill.
There has been some discussion today about the REAL ID provision. I
didn't think that was a wonderful idea myself. It was not included in
the Senate bill. It was a House provision. But the House Members
insisted that it be included in the conference report. Anyone who
wanted to resist that had an opportunity to argue against it or to
offer a motion that the Senate insist upon its position that it not be
included. No Senator elected to do that.
I didn't know how many meetings were going to be required of the
conference. I had no idea what the House would do in terms of insisting
on provisions in this bill as that conference began. I was, frankly,
surprised that we didn't have but two meetings of the conference. I
expected that we would have other meetings. But the House didn't think
it was important or necessary, and I got the impression that there were
going to be no more meetings but only after the second meeting had
concluded. Members of the committee continued to discuss issues with
House conferees, and we finally reached agreement.
I think this is a good conference report. It is a reasonable
compromise between the two bills that were passed by the House and the
Senate. We didn't get everything we wanted in the conference with the
House; neither did the House get everything they wanted in conference
with our Senate conferees. But I think this is a fair conference
report. It reflects a commitment to support the President, to provide
funding that is needed for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It is an urgent supplemental bill, and it ought to be passed today by
the Senate. I am confident that it will be.
I appreciate very much the assistance and the affirmative way members
of our conference worked to ensure that we could get a conference
report that would be adopted by the Senate. I think we have
accomplished that goal.
I am proud of the work that was done by the members of our staffs.
They worked very, very hard in the preparation of the conference report
that is before the Senate today. I especially want to thank our staff
director, Keith Kennedy; Terry Sauvain, his counterpart on the
Democratic side; Chuck Keiffer on the Democratic side, who also worked
very hard; Charlie Houy, who has been a stalwart member of the staff of
the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee for many years; Rebecca Davies
on the Homeland Security Appropriations Committee; Sid Ashworth, the
clerk of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. Senator Stevens,
chairman of that subcommittee and former chairman of the full
committee, was enormously influential in this conference. I have been
very grateful for his support and assistance. I also thank Clayton
Heil, counsel to our Senate Committee on Appropriations, who has been
very helpful as well. And there are others.
Mr. President, I appreciate the assistance of other Senators on the
full Committee on Appropriations. We had strong support in the signing
of the conference report. It has been a bipartisan achievement. It is
not a partisan bill, and we appreciate the fact that it is not.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous
consent that the time under the quorum be charged equally to each side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, in a time of war, nothing is more
important than making sure that our fighting men and women have what
they need to do their jobs well. It is with our troops in mind that I
will vote in favor of this supplemental appropriations conference
report.
Having said that, I do have some major concerns about how this bill
has been put together and how the Congress has conducted its business
with respect to such emergency spending requests over the past several
years.
Thousands of brave Americans have been serving our country in war
zones since shortly after that fateful day of September 11, 2001. But 4
years later, the President and those of us in this Congress continue to
refuse to budget for these wartime expenses. Rather than incorporating
the costs of the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in the budget,
these important expenditures continue to be tagged as ``emergency
spending.'' Emergency spending should be reserved, in my view, for
unforeseen needs.
We know, however, that the need for additional funding for our
campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan is something we should expect and be
able to budget for. Unfortunately, this is not new for this Congress or
for the Bush administration. This is, I believe, the fourth consecutive
time that funding for military operations in Iraq and in Afghanistan
have been requested outside the regular budgeting and appropriations
process.
By not taking into consideration the costs of these supplemental
requests, which we all know are coming, the President and the Congress
can more easily fudge the true nature of our Federal deficits and what
our spending assumptions will be over the foreseeable future. In other
words, by keeping the spending out of the budget, the President and
this Congress can paint a fiscal picture that is, frankly, rosier than
reality.
Contrast, if you will, what we are doing today with what we did
during the Vietnam conflict, the conflict I served in and I know others
of us did as well. After one supplemental appropriations in 1966,
President Johnson and later President Nixon included the cost of our
military operations in Vietnam in their annual budget requests, not in
emergency supplemental after emergency supplemental. They requested
them in their annual budget request. That approach was the right
approach. Whether people approved of the war in Vietnam and our
involvement there, at least the approach of budgeting for it was
appropriate. I believe we owe it to the American people, who are very
aware of the cost and nature of our operations, to be upfront about the
true state of our country's finances.
To make a second point, there have been times in the last several
years when the House has passed a bill, the Senate has passed a bill,
we convene a conference committee, and the House and Senate, Democrats
and Republicans, have a full and open opportunity to participate in
that conference committee.
Concerns have been raised. I think the chairman of this committee is,
quite frankly, as fairminded a person as I know. It is a real joy to
serve with him. I have said it to him privately and I will say it to
him publicly. But I have heard reports back from those who felt they
did not have opportunity extended to them to actually offer amendments
in committee that they felt they had been assured they would have a
chance to offer. That is a matter of concern to me and I think it would
be if the shoe were on the other foot.
Third subject, REAL ID. There was an amendment I alluded to offered
by Senator Durbin that passed the Senate. It passed the Senate 99 to 0.
The amendment would have helped to compensate Federal employees who
were called to active duty who were making more money as a Federal
employee than they were after they had been activated to active duty.
We passed by a
[[Page S4846]]
99-to-0 vote a provision that said we should make up the shortfall in
those instances. That particular amendment that was passed by a 99-to-0
vote was left out of the conference report. I know other items were
never considered by the Senate. A prime example of that is the
controversial REAL ID proposal somehow did find its way into the
legislation. As I recall, we never had a chance on the Senate floor to
even discuss the REAL ID issue. It was not part of our supplemental
bill. Yet when the final bill comes up, we are looking at 55 pages of
new immigration law that this body has never debated and which was
inserted at the behest of the House Republican leadership.
I have a serious concern about whether these immigration provisions
make sense. I know some feel they do, but I have some real concerns.
The REAL ID Act, for example, would repeal the driver's license
standards framework we created last year in the Intelligence Reform
Act, which is based on the recommendations made unanimously by the 9/11
Commission. In place of the 9/11 Commission framework, REAL ID would
create an entirely new and expensive Federal standard for the issuance
of driver's licenses but provide no funding to my State, Mississippi,
South Carolina, or any other State, for that matter. As a former
Governor, I believe such unfunded mandates should not be considered
lightly.
Furthermore, I have heard from a number of constituents in my own
State who are concerned that the bill would make it more difficult for
those fleeing religious persecution to gain asylum, while allowing the
Secretary of Homeland Security to waive all laws in order to build a
fence along our borders.
In this post-9/11 world we know it is vital to ensure security not
only along our borders but also within our Nation. However, instead of
thoroughly considering homeland security and immigration reform
measures, the House has hastily tacked on legislation that could have
potential negative consequences for the Latino and other immigrant
communities in my State and across our country. I think we should have
had a proper debate to ensure that this legislation would actually
protect our Nation and make us more secure.
The last thing I want to mention deals with Israel and the peace
process there. I returned from that part of the world about 5 weeks
ago, convinced there is an opening, a possibility, however difficult to
achieve, that Israelis and Palestinians may find common ground; that
the Palestinians finally have a chance to end up with a homeland of
their own and to live side by side in a separate state, in a
geographical area with the Israelis, who would have peaceful and secure
borders and reasonable economic and diplomatic relations with their
Arab neighbors.
I came back and called Secretary Rice and said, we ought to be
putting as much energy and time and attention into trying to forge a
final compromise, a final peaceful resolution, in Israel. To the extent
we can do that between the Palestinians and the Israelis, we would
probably do more to reduce the ability of terrorists to raise money, to
reduce the ability of terrorists to recruit new terrorists, to reduce
their ability to convince people in some kind of unholy jihad to go out
and blow themselves up and kill a lot of innocent people.
If the United States can somehow emerge from a peace process in the
Middle East and Israel and be seen as the honest broker in helping the
Israelis and the Palestinians get to a fair and peaceful permanent
resolution, we would do more to set back the terrorists and end the war
on terrorism, to make us safer in this country, to make people safer in
Israel, in Palestinian-controlled areas, to make people safer in Iraq
and Afghanistan as well.
When I was in Israel, I had the opportunity to travel to Ramallah.
During that trip, we were behind a flatbed truck. As that truck went
from Israeli-controlled territory into the West Bank, it had to go
through a checkpoint. At the checkpoint, literally everything on the
flatbed truck had to be removed and moved on to another flatbed truck
in order to make sure there was not contraband, explosives or something
there that would represent an endangerment to other people.
One of the best ways to ensure that terrorists still have plenty of
places from which to recruit new terrorists in that part of the world
is to ensure that the rate of unemployment in Palestinian-controlled
areas remains at about 50 percent. It is in our interest, it is in the
interest of the Israelis, it certainly is in the interest of
Palestinians who want peace and a better life, for us to help bring
down the rate of unemployment.
The way to do that is not to have trucks go from one part of that
area to stop at a checkpoint and offload on to a new truck. There has
to be a free flow of people and a free flow of goods, a free flow of
commerce in that part of the world in order to help get the Palestinian
economy up and on its feet and to bring down unemployment.
My parents used to say to me, an idle mind is the devil's workshop.
Well, people who do not have anything to do with their time are also
prime for being recruited as terrorists. To the extent we can help
bring down the unemployment rate in the Palestinian communities, we
also bring down the likelihood they are going to be recruited to become
terrorists.
In the bill that passed the Senate, there is a provision for some
$200 million to support Palestinian political, economic, and security
reforms. As we have gone through the process in conference, roughly the
same amount of money has emerged, and it is not going directly to the
Palestinian Authority. A portion of that, maybe $50 million, will end
up going to the Government of Israel as they try to create high-
security checkpoints which would allow that truck I talked about
earlier to go through a high-tech security checkpoint and not have to
be offloaded. It would enable people to move freely who are trying to
get a job or going to a job from Palestinian areas to Israeli areas or
vice versa, without being impeded from doing that, or having to spend
hours trying to get through a checkpoint.
At the same time, we have the ability through the technology of today
to stop the terrorists. People who are carrying contraband or
explosives or stuff that will enable them to hurt other people can be
stopped at these checkpoints. There is money in this bill that would
enable the Israelis to help build terminals, checkpoints for folks to
pass through, Palestinians or Israelis, for that matter, to reduce the
likelihood of terrorist incidents that will grow out of that movement
of people, and to better ensure that goods and services in commerce can
move about freely. So that is a good thing.
There are some who will quarrel with whether the money should have
gone directly to the Palestinian Authority or whether it is more
appropriate to go through other organizations that we call NGOs. I am
not going to get into that argument.
I say to my friend from Mississippi, we may have a chance later on--
maybe in the Foreign Affairs appropriations bill or the foreign
operations bill--to come back and revisit this issue and decide
whether, given the reforms that are being made in the Palestinian
Authority through reduced corruption, to tamp down on terrorism within
organizations such as Hamas, we may have the opportunity to come back
and decide whether to allocate some additional money later this year to
strengthen the position of President Abbas and to reward positive
behavior on his behalf and that of other Palestinians.
So those are points I wanted to make. I am going to recap them again
very briefly. First, the concern as we go forward for us to take as an
example the budgeting approach used by earlier administrations,
Democrat and Republican, President Johnson, President Nixon, at least
in terms of funding the Vietnam war. After the first emergency
supplemental appropriation, fiscal year 1966, they said we are going to
make part of our regular budget request moneys to support that war
effort. Again, we ought to do the same thing now going forward.
Second, I call on our Republican friends to remember the Golden Rule,
to treat other people the way we want to be treated. As we go forward
in these conference committees, to the extent we treat people fairly
from our side, some day when we are in the majority--and some day we
will be--more
[[Page S4847]]
likely we will end up with a situation where the minority, in that case
the Republicans, will be treated fairly, too.
On REAL ID, it will be interesting to see what the States come up
with in response to these unfunded mandates. I don't like unfunded
mandates. I never liked them as a Governor. I don't like it now.
Whenever we in Washington figure out that we ought to tell the States
and local governments how to spend the money, we don't provide the
money. We tell them how to raise the money, or not raise the money, but
we do not provide an offset. That is a slippery slope. I think we are
on that slippery slope with respect to this REAL ID provision.
Finally, on the Palestinian peace initiative, I think it is important
to promote investments in the Palestinian areas to get their economy
moving again, and it is important we help fund security measures that
enable the free flow of commerce, of people and goods in and out of the
Palestinian areas so they can reduce their unemployment rates and
reduce the threats of terrorism.
With that having been said, I am going to stop here. I suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I want to speak as to how I am
going to vote. Clearly, the necessity of funding for all of our troops
requires a ``yes'' vote on this legislation. I gladly do that. I do
want to express my concerns about this so-called REAL ID part that was
put in in the dead of night, without the notification that was promised
to the minority and without the informing of all the various Senators
who were part of the conference committee. This is not the way we
should be doing legislation. It ought to be in the full light of day.
That is why they refer to making legislation is like making sausage--
you don't know what all is in it.
With regard to this REAL ID Act, the concern that I have is that we
are going to have an invasion of people's privacy without having
carefully considered it through committee hearings and through full
debate of the issue. For something that is as important to so many
Americans as a driver's license, we are going to start on the road of
the invasion of privacy. I do not think this is the way to establish
what is, in effect, the first step for a national identification card.
I don't think this is the way to do it, in the dead of night, by
stealth and sleight of hand.
Second, I think Senators are going to get an earful if they are
starting to get the rumblings that I am getting from constituents in my
State. When most people find out they have to haul out a birth
certificate when they go down to reestablish their driver's license, it
is going to cause a great inconvenience, especially to the senior
citizens of this country. I think Senators are going to get an earful.
Third, I am quite concerned about the implication that this is going
to have on the rights and protections of minorities. Is this the
beginning, portending certain discriminations because of minorities?
Obviously, this is a must-pass piece of legislation. It is funding
the war effort. It is funding our troops. We are all going to vote for
it, and we will pass it. But we should not have something that is so
important to the privacy rights of Americans added to a bill like this
in this secretive way.
I wanted my comments made very clearly on the record.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I have something else as long as we are in a holding
pattern. What is the pleasure of the majority leader? Does he want to
go on and call for the vote or does he want to have some more time
before the vote, in which I will speak on another subject?
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I have not talked to the Democratic leader,
but I think if we are about ready to vote, then what I might do is go
ahead and do my statement in the interest of time, unless there is
something just burning that the distinguished Senator from Florida has
to say. I will go ahead and do my statement and then--if the Democratic
leader is available?
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I will tell the Senator that I have something
that is really burning because they are trying to drill for oil off the
coast of Florida. But I am going to yield to the majority leader and to
his wishes so he can expedite the process and the vote.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I apologize for Senators having to wait for
me. I want to begin by saying I support this legislation. I commend the
work of the managers of the bill, Senator Cochran and Senator Byrd. I
understand how essential this bill is to our troops who are risking
their lives and, of course, to the tsunami victims who are struggling
to rebuild their lives.
The conference report, though, comes up short on two issues: Iraq
and, of course, immigration--short of what the world rightly expects
from the most free nation in the world, and short of what Americans
should expect from their elected leaders is what is written all over
this conference report.
Starting with Iraq, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
recently said that the insurgency is as strong today as it was a year
ago. The recent upsurge in violence and unrest in Iraq seems to bear
out that remarkable and very troubling conclusion. Yet the
administration acts as if the situation in Iraq is essentially under
control and the remaining difficulties are Iraq's problems.
The unfortunate truth seems to be that more than 2 years after
President Bush declared the end of major combat operations--remember
``mission accomplished''--Iraq has a limited capacity to defend itself
or govern itself.
Even worse, the administration has no real plan to help Iraq acquire
that capacity. As much as the President may want to dump Iraq's
problems on the new Iraqi Government, his administration has a
responsibility to our troops and the Iraqi people to help address these
problems and to inform Congress how he plans to do so.
I would underscore that this supplemental appropriations bill should
not have had to come before this body at this time. It should have been
in our regular budget. This war is ongoing. There is no reason to do it
in this way.
I have supported and the Senate passed an amendment crafted by
Senators Durbin, Levin, and Kennedy requiring the administration to
inform us of its efforts and plans for securing and stabilizing Iraq.
Unfortunately, Republican conferees dropped the important amendment
from the text of this bill.
As troubled as I am by the Republican majority's actions on Iraq, I
am perhaps more disturbed by what they decided to do on immigration,
and how they went about it.
Republicans tacked the so-called REAL ID immigration legislation onto
this emergency supplemental that is to provide funding for our troops.
REAL ID imposes dramatic new burdens on the States and substantially
alters the immigration and asylum laws in ways that this Nation may
soon come to regret the action taken by this body.
For the House to self-righteously say that on appropriations bills
they will allow no authorizing legislation, people can always waive
this REAL ID--this is the mother of all authorizing legislation on an
appropriations bill.
This REAL ID Act makes reckless and unwise changes to our laws with
respect to the environment, refugees, judicial review and, most of all,
States rights. It is essentially anti-immigrant legislation couched in
the language of antiterrorism. The Wall Street Journal, not the bastion
of the so-called liberal press, said the changes made by REAL ID ``have
long occupied the wish list of anti-immigration lawmakers and
activists.'' That is the Wall Street Journal.
REAL ID will make it much more difficult for individuals fleeing
persecution to seek asylum in the United States, will sharply reduce
the ability of the Federal courts to rein in overzealous or ill-willed
administration officials, and will give the Secretary of Homeland
Security unprecedented authority to waive environmental and other laws.
REAL ID could compromise the privacy of American citizens, create
long
[[Page S4848]]
lines at local DMVs, and make it harder for States and the Federal
Government to keep track of who is in our country. In short, REAL ID
may make us less rather than more safe.
As troubling as what the majority did on immigration is the way they
went about it. Republicans tacked on REAL ID knowing full well
immigration issues had nothing to do, as I have said before, with the
underlying legislation and that REAL ID had never, ever been considered
in the Senate, either in the Judiciary Committee, the committee of
jurisdiction, I believe, or on the Senate floor.
Compounding matters, House and Senate Republican conferees went
behind closed doors without Democrats and included a modified version
of REAL ID.
What so troubles me is that the Republicans have the votes. They are
in the majority. They had the majority in the conference. But they
refused to have up-or-down votes so the public could see what they were
doing. They had the ability to turn down every amendment we offered,
but they were unwilling to do that.
They rejected a bipartisan plea to give REAL ID and other immigration
issues the time and attention they deserved, and limited opportunities
for opponents of REAL ID to offer motions to strike or change what they
agreed to.
As a result of the Republicans' decision to incorporate REAL ID and
their abuse of the process, most Democratic conferees either refused to
sign the conference report or did so while taking strong exception to
the REAL ID provision.
I am also disappointed about the White House's role in this matter.
For years now, the administration has been talking about the need to
reform immigration laws. Remember the big trip President Bush made,
when he was first elected, to meet with President Fox in Mexico? They
have been talking about the need for reform, so law-abiding, hard-
working immigrants can find work in this country, help our economy
grow, and support their families here and back, mostly, in Mexico.
Since this legislation will hurt hundreds of thousands of the very
people the administration professes to be concerned about, I would have
expected the President to oppose it. Unfortunately, he chose not to do
so.
The best thing we could do for our security would be to enact
comprehensive and effective immigration reform so we can gain control
once again over our borders and focus our limited resources on
terrorists and criminals.
Senator Frist has indicated he is willing to set aside time for a
separate debate about immigration later this year, and I know he will
follow through on that. That is what he said he would do. The Senate
and the American people deserve time to consider this issue and time to
revisit many of this legislation's most problematic provisions.
Finally, I think our ability to succeed in Iraq should have received
much greater attention in this bill, and immigration should have been
dealt with more thoughtfully and thoroughly in a subsequent legislative
vehicle. Our troops and taxpayers are expecting solutions and
leadership from the President and the Congress. The world is expecting
this Nation to live up to some of the lofty immigration rhetoric
espoused by the administration early on. I regret the majority acted in
this fashion. I look forward to opportunities to revisit these unwise
decisions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, in a few minutes we will vote on the
President's war and tsunami supplemental request. I take this
opportunity to thank Chairman Thad Cochran, as well as Senator Byrd,
for their leadership on behalf of our men and women in uniform. This is
one of the first major appropriations for Senator Cochran under his
chairmanship of the full committee, and I do congratulate him for a job
superbly done. I also thank Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye. I am
confident we have a bill that will shortly be overwhelmingly supported
on both sides of the aisle.
The legislation before us is absolutely critical to winning the war
on terror. It provides $75.9 billion in support of our troops who are
out in the field in Iraq and Afghanistan courageously hunting down the
enemy, helping rebuild these countries, and spreading freedom and
democracy.
We are indebted to our soldiers, and this legislation reflects our
deep commitment to their readiness, to their safety, to their families'
well-being.
This weekend, U.S. troops launched a major counterinsurgency
offensive in western Iraq near the Syrian border. This region has
become an infamous smuggling route and sanctuary for foreign jihadists.
So far, our troops have killed over 100 of the terrorists, and they
continue to press the enemy back.
Meanwhile, this weekend, our military announced the capture of a top
Zarqawi associate, Amar Zubaydi. He was apprehended in a raid on his
home last Thursday. Zubaydi is an extremely dangerous man. He is
believed responsible for multiple car bombings across Baghdad, as well
as the attack on the Abu Ghraib prison last month which wounded 44 U.S.
troops and 13 detainees. Authorities also discovered he was planning
the assassination of a top Iraqi Government official.
The good news is he is now in custody where he can no longer wreak
his havoc. Military sources tell us Zubaydi's capture has provided
invaluable insights into the Zarqawi wing of the al-Qaida network.
This arrest, along with the capture of Ghassan Amin in late April and
Abu Farraj al-Libbi in Pakistan last week, further tightens the noose.
Indeed, we intercepted a note by one of their colleagues complaining of
the group's low morale.
Osama bin Laden and al-Zarqawi will be brought to justice, just as
Saddam and his henchmen now sit in prison. Our brave men and women in
uniform and their colleagues across the U.S. Government are risking
their lives and working hard every day to bring that moment ever
closer.
I urge my fellow Senators to pass the supplemental swiftly so we can
get this support to our military men and women in the field--and also,
I should add, to the victims of the December tsunami tragedy. The war
supplemental includes nearly $880 million in relief funds to help
people in countries devastated by that deadly wave.
Furthermore, it includes nearly $630 million to increase security at
our borders by hiring 500 new border agents and tightening our driver's
license ID requirements.
America is leading the war on terror, and we are making great
progress. As this supplemental appropriations demonstrates, we are a
strong Nation, and we are a compassionate Nation.
I look forward to an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote on this critical
legislation in a few moments. Our troops and our fellow citizens are
depending on it.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we yield back the time on our side.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield back our time as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
The question is on adoption of the conference report. The yeas and
nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 117 Leg.]
YEAS--100
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
Inouye
Isakson
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
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
[[Page S4849]]
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
The conference report was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
____________________