[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 124 (Thursday, September 29, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10699-S10702]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006--Continued
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, there have been so many legislative
fellows and interns requesting to have seats on the floor, I am not
sure there will be room for any regular staff soon. So I am going to
start refusing to agree to floor privileges unless we are sure that
there is going to be space for those staff who are assigned to work
with members of the committee on this bill.
It is our hope we will be able to get to a vote on the Harkin
amendment soon. I want to make a short statement, and that is, we have
had some information from the Department of Defense.
May we go back on the bill now? We are back on the bill
automatically?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. STEVENS. I call the attention of my colleagues to the fact that
the money for Iraq and Afghanistan is in a reserve account in this bill
and, theoretically, it should have started being available this
Saturday. It will only be available when this bill is signed into law
by the President.
Sometime during the first quarter, operating accounts for day-to-day
operation costs--operation and maintenance for the Army, for the Marine
Corps, and for the training efforts of Iraqis--are in the reserve
account and will not be available. It is imperative we get this bill to
the President so it can be signed to make the money available by the
middle of November.
Increased fuel costs are putting pressure on operating accounts. We
all know what it costs us when we pull up to a gas station and fill up
a tank. It costs just as much or more to fill up the tanks in Iraq and
Afghanistan for those people who are in the air and on the ground. That
money is not going to be available unless we approve this bill.
One of the things that bothers me is that there is money in this bill
to finance continued production of the C-130Js. That production
contract is planned for mid-November, but there is no money available
now. It will not be available until the 2006 bill is signed. There are
a whole series of things in this bill that are designed to take the
pressure off of the way the funding is being carried out at the
Department of Defense. The ability to finance the improvised explosive
device task force initiatives will be constrained unless that $50
billion portion of this bill is passed.
So I urge the Senate to help us get this bill through as quickly as
possible. I know that is sort of difficult now with the recesses that
are coming up, but very clearly we are starting to get amendments that
are not germane to this bill, and I hope that will not go on.
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. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I and the Senator from Hawaii join in
asking the clerks in both cloakrooms that they would send out a notice
that we intend to move for third reading if there is no amendment
presented within an hour.
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. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I discussed this with the distinguished
floor managers.
First, parliamentary inquiry: Is the Harkin amendment now the pending
business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the pending question.
Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to set
aside
[[Page S10700]]
that amendment so the distinguished Senator from Missouri and I could
offer an amendment, and that upon the completion of action or the
setting aside, whichever transpires first, it be in order to return to
the Harkin amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1901
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy], for himself and Mr.
Bond, proposes an amendment numbered 1901.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To appropriate $1,300,000,000 for Additional War-Related
Appropriations for National Guard and Reserve Equipment for homeland
security and homeland security response equipment)
On page 228, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:
National Guard and Reserve Equipment
For an additional amount for ``National Guard and Reserve
Equipment'', $1,300,000,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That the amount available under this
heading shall be available for homeland security and homeland
security response equipment; Provided further, That the
amount provided under this heading is designated as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of the
conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 (108th
Congress).
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, so Members will know, this amendment adds
$1.3 billion in emergency funding for National Guard equipment to the
supplemental portion of the fiscal year 2006 Defense appropriations
bill. The funding is set aside for the National Guard to buy much
needed items for homeland security and natural disaster response.
Hurricane Katrina exposed glaring deficiencies in the equipment
available for the National Guard to respond to such disasters. After
Hurricane Katrina, we had barely sufficient levels of trucks, tractors,
communication, and miscellaneous equipment that is necessary to respond
to the overwhelming scale of this storm. If we have another hurricane
or, God forbid, a large-scale terrorist attack, our National Guard is
not going to have the basic level of resources to do the job right.
As we know, in every one of our 50 States, we have seen in our career
times where the National Guard was called upon to help. The National
Guard Chief, LTG Steven Blum, recently noted that the Guard has only
about 35 percent of what is officially required to respond to
hurricanes, natural disasters, or possible terrorist attacks at home.
Yesterday, in an appearance in the House of Representatives, General
Blum noted that Guard members responded to this disaster with
insufficient and outdated communications. General Blum noted we are
going to need at least--a staggering amount--$7 billion to procure the
communications, trucks, medical supplies, and machinery necessary to
respond to future disasters.
We knew, even before that hearing, that without any doubt there is an
immediate need for at least $1.3 billion. We have to procure essential
equipment such as a family of medium tractor vehicles, new SINCGARS
radios, night-vision goggles, and other equipment.
I ask unanimous consent that a recent report from the National Guard
on these critical needs be printed in the Record.
Executive Summary
National Guard units that deployed to combat since
September 11th have been the best trained and equipped force
in American History. $4.3 billion has been invested to
provide those units with the very best, state-of-the-art
equipment available in the world today.
This is an unprecedented demonstration of the DoD
commitment to ensure that no soldier or aiman, regardless of
component (Active, Guard, or Reserve), goes to war ill-
equipped or untrained. With the help of the US Congress, this
was accomplished over a two-year period. It is a reality for
National Guard overseas combat deployments.
Now, the senior leadership of the DoD is extending the same
level of commitment to the National Guard, the nation's first
military responders in time of domestic need.
The DoD has a comprehensive reset plan that recognizes the
National Guard's critical role in Homeland Defense and
support to Homeland Security operations. This will take time
and resources. I am confident that a real sense of urgency
exists to make this a reality for America.
Communications equipment, tactical vehicles and trucks and
engineer equipment are the National Guard's highest equipment
priorities.
H. Steven Blum, LTG, USA,
Chief, National Guard Bureau.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we got into this situation for two reasons:
First, unfortunately, with all the other needs of this country, we
have traditionally underfunded the National Guard's equipment level.
Second, much of the equipment the Guard does have is being used in the
ongoing war effort in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in our needs across the
Middle East and Central Asia. We all know there is no prospect that we
are going to see it again back in the United States any time soon.
The distinguished senior Senator from Missouri, Senator Bond, and I
cochair the Senate National Guard Caucus. On September 13, the two of
us wrote the President to urge that the administration deal with this
problem immediately. We want to demonstrate by our letter that this is
not a partisan issue, it is a national issue.
We asked the President include the $1.3 billion in the next
supplemental spending bill to deal with Hurricane Katrina. But we can't
wait for the President to request the funding. We have to act now. The
date this next supplemental spending bill will be submitted is still
uncertain. We don't know when it is going to be submitted. But with
this Defense appropriations bill, we have billions of dollars in
emergency funding. Much of that emergency funding, rightly so, will go
toward ensuring that our men and women abroad have the right tools to
do their jobs. We should do that. But it is just as reasonable and
necessary that we add emergency funding to deal with the equipment
needs of our troops at home.
Certainly in the last couple of months, we have seen probably at no
other time how much that equipment is needed, and we know there will be
other occasions.
I praise Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye for including so much
equipment money for the Guard in supplemental baseline bills. While
most of that new equipment will go toward the Guard's overseas
warfighting needs, our Guard and Reserve have a greater percentage and
a greater activity than at any time in decades, and they need the help.
The funding we are now asking for takes a big step forward.
I have worked with them closely. Of course, I want to see the
amendment accepted. I will, of course, ask for a vote, if we can't
reach such agreement.
I know the distinguished Senator from Alaska and the distinguished
Senator from Hawaii have spent even more years in this body than I
have, and they worked closely to help our National Guard. Senator Bond
and I have done our best to fashion a reasonable and necessary piece of
legislation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to join wholeheartedly my
National Guard Caucus cochairman, the distinguished Senator from
Vermont, in urging the Senate to adopt these emergency appropriations
for our National Guard.
We have had a lot of talk about emergency responders and people
wondered, Did this group do their job? Did that group do their job? As
Governor of Missouri for 8 years, I saw the National Guard respond, and
respond fully, to every natural disaster we had. We had floods, we had
tornadoes, we had some other civil disorders, and the Guard responded.
They responded with the equipment they needed.
Since that time, I have served in the Senate as cochairman of the
National Guard. I have seen the Guard continue to respond to State
emergencies time after time after time. When they have been called upon
to go abroad as part of the national defense mission, they have done so
extremely well.
Unfortunately, the men and women of the National Guard, those vital
citizen soldiers who volunteer to serve their country, have not been
well resourced. It appears when equipment
[[Page S10701]]
is available the Pentagon obviously takes care, first, of the active.
In this situation, we have seen a tremendous drain on equipment--not
just from emergencies around the country but from the National Guard's
participation and contribution of equipment to our overseas mission. As
a result, the equipment readiness in critical areas of the National
Guard has fallen to about 34 percent. We are asking the men and women
of the Guard to go into situations--whether they be overseas military
situations or a vital rescue mission such as New Orleans--without the
equipment.
Our Guard, along with others, responded and responded promptly to the
disaster of the gulf coast. They were in Louisiana. They went proudly.
We sent an engineer battalion from Jefferson Barracks in Missouri. They
went down there, and they performed admirably. They had one set of
trucks, one set of communications equipment, and one set of night
vision goggles. The need was great, and they asked for a second of the
National Guard engineering units to be deployed. We had to refuse, not
because we did not have the personnel ready--we did not have the
trucks, we did not have the communication equipment. We absolutely
could not respond in that situation because of a lack of equipment.
When we read the stories about the National Guard's participation,
one gets a better understanding of how effective and how responsive the
National Guard is.
As the Senator from Vermont said, we have requested that an emergency
appropriation be added to the supplemental. I join with him today in
asking the Senate to approve as an emergency appropriations measure the
money we need. This money is critically important. It includes trucks.
The big trucks the National Guard has can drive through flood areas.
They can rescue people. They can also go in war zones. They need night
vision goggles. You may think night vision goggles are necessary
primarily in war. Think about going into New Orleans, which has lost
all of its power, all of its lighting, and you are trying to find
people who are in grave personal danger because of the rising
floodwaters. You need the night vision goggles to see them. Most
importantly, think about communications. How do they work with other
units, other Federal units, other State units, when they are on a civil
mission? When they are under control of the local officials who have
the responsibility, who have the local command, how do they communicate
with them? They cannot in too many instances.
That is why this particular appropriation is so important that we
begin resourcing our Guard. We can all be very proud of the Guard in
our States. We do not have every Member of the Senate as a member of
the National Guard Caucus, but I have not found a Member of this Senate
who is not extremely proud of his or her National Guard. They know when
the chips are down, when lives are in danger, the Guard can and will
respond. The Guard comes to our defense regularly. The very least we
can do is make sure we support the Guard when they go in. Not giving
them the equipment they need is not an answer. We are not going to send
them into harm's way without the equipment to do their job.
This is an important amendment. This is a large sum. We, obviously,
are very much aware of the needs. This is a pressing need, and the
emergencies and the wartime situation we are in compel a response to
the needs of the Guard.
I thank my colleague from Vermont for offering this, and I urge my
colleagues to join in seeing that the National Guard gets the
appropriation resources they need. I thank the managers of the bill.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEAHY. I thank the distinguished Senator from Missouri. I was
going to suggest that if the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from
Hawaii want to accept the amendment, we could actually get some
significant business done right here.
While they are thinking about this, I must say there are few people
in this Senate more senior than I, but certainly the Senator from
Hawaii is much more senior, the Senator from Alaska is much more
senior. They are only two of five people senior to me, and they want a
quorum.
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. BOND. 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. BOND. Mr. President, one of the minor procedural problems we have
around here with an emergency clause is this has to go through several
layers of clearance. It is not a higher pay grade, it is a different
pay grade, it is a different responsibility. The distinguished floor
managers are working on that. We have the budget committees and others
who have to act on it.
I appreciate very much the work of Chairman Stevens and Senator
Inouye. I hope we will be able to resolve this very shortly. We have
two of the best leaders in the Senate handling this bill. Whatever
needs to be done I assure my colleagues will be done.
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. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, is the Harkin amendment the pending
amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Leahy amendment is pending.
Amendment No. 1886
Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent the Leahy amendment be set aside
and the Harkin amendment be brought before the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. We have had some conversations about this amendment. It
is an amendment that raises the subject of the way the Government is
going to approach the great problems associated with Asian flu. Under
the circumstances, it has been my recommendation that we take this
amendment to conference because then the subject will be in this bill.
If the agencies involved can come together with an appropriate plan and
request for money, we would then be able to do this in conference.
Although I have had some question about this amendment, we have
discussed this now with the author of the amendment. As I indicated to
him, if it would pass, I would cosponsor, and I ask that my name be
added as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
of the Senator from Iowa.
The amendment (No. 1886) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. The pending amendment is the Leahy amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Leahy amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. Is that the Leahy-Bond amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is.
Mr. STEVENS. 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. BOND. 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. BOND. Mr. President, I clarify with the desk that I am shown on
the Leahy amendment; it is the Leahy-Bond amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is listed as a cosponsor.
Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair.
Nomination Of John Roberts
Mr. President, while I have the floor, I will reflect a moment on the
vote we took earlier today. This vote has such weight because of its
place in our system of government. The Supreme Court is a final voice
on the extent of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, the
demarcation of power between
[[Page S10702]]
the legislative and executive branch of Government, and the division of
power reserved for the Federal Government and the governments of the
individual States. As a Member of this legislative body and in a former
life as a State Governor, I am acutely aware of the importance of the
lines and the consequences when they are broached.
As a Member of the Senate, I do not welcome decisions overturning
legislative acts that I support, but I frequently work with my
colleagues to reject efforts to meddle in State affairs. As a Governor
attempting to guide my State, I had to labor through many burdens
placed in our way, the State's way, by an intrusive Federal Government.
The judicial branch of our Government--most notably the Supreme
Court--has been designated by the Constitution as the branch to
maintain these divisions of power and referee the tensions between our
governments. After observing Judge Roberts during the days of hearings
before the Committee on the Judiciary, I am convinced the power that
comes with the vote of a Supreme Court Justice will be in wise and
capable hands.
Throughout the strenuous sessions, Judge Roberts' intelligence,
patience, and temperament were on full display. Judge Roberts made a
convincing case through words and demeanor that he will approach his
responsibility with modesty and humility.
Also, as Judge Roberts repeatedly reminded his inquisitors, he is not
a politician. I commend him on his willingness to remind my colleagues
that he was not before Congress to compromise or give hints on how he
might vote on a hypothetical case in exchange for confirmation votes;
rather, he confirmed repeatedly that the Constitution will be his guide
to these questions.
I suspect that some of my colleagues have come to rely on the
judiciary to advance changes that have no support in the duly elected
member of our legislature, State and national; hence, their frustration
with Judge Roberts.
Judge Roberts has clearly defined views of the role of the judiciary
and the role of the legislature, and they do not appear to be blurred.
As Judge Roberts put it so well:
If the people who framed our Constitution were jealous of
their freedom and liberty, they would not have sat around and
said, ``Let's take all the hard issues and give them over to
the judges.'' That would have been the farthest thing from
their mind.
As did the Founders, I do not believe State and National legislative
bodies are incapable of settling tough and contentious issues. I do not
believe it is benevolent or admirable for judges to remove questions
from the public realm because they are divisive. Judge Roberts has
shown the modesty and respect to refrain from that path.
Judge Roberts also has made it clear he finds no place for reflection
on the public attitudes and legal documents of foreign lands in the
consideration of constitutional questions. They do not and should not
offer any guidance as to the words and the meaning of our own
Constitution.
During his testimony, Judge Roberts displayed a respect for the
Constitution and the rule of law as the principles that should guide
him when ruling on a case. His view of the role of the judiciary is
very consistent with my own.
Finally, I believe President Bush has executed his duties in a
responsible manner that will serve our Nation well. He interviewed many
distinguished and qualified judges and attorneys in the country. He
consulted with Members of the Senate. After careful and thoughtful
deliberation, President Bush returned to the Senate the name of John
Roberts. I am very pleased today that 78 Members of the Senate agreed
and confirmed him to the Supreme Court.
Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mrs. Murray are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 6
minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Alexander are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Amendment No. 1901
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a
cosponsor of the Bond-Leahy amendment regarding additional funding for
the Guard and Reserve.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. LANDRIEU. This is relative to the extraordinary work that they
did in Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and the extraordinary work that our
Guard does throughout the Nation. In fact, as I speak, I am sure they
are on the ground for this unfolding tragedy in California with the
fires. I am not able to speak more fully at this time but I wanted to
register my support for the amendment and will speak later tonight. I
understand this amendment may be accepted. I thank my colleagues for
their great support at this time of obvious need. The people of
Louisiana and the gulf coast are grateful.
I yield the floor.
____________________