[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.

                          ____________________