[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 129 (Thursday, October 6, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11174-S11186]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 2863.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 2863) making appropriations for the Department
of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and
for other purposes.
Pending:
Reed/Hagel amendment No. 1943, to transfer certain amounts
from the supplemental authorizations of appropriations for
Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Global War on Terrorism to amounts
for Operation and Maintenance, Army, Operation and
Maintenance, Marine Corps, Operation and Maintenance,
Defense-wide activities, and Military Personnel in order to
provide for increased personnel strengths for the Army and
the Marine Corps for fiscal year 2006.
Coburn amendment No. 2005, to curtail waste under the
Department of Defense web-based travel system.
Mr. FRIST. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would like to speak as in morning
business. If any other Senator comes and wants to speak about an
amendment on the underlying bill, I would be pleased to wrap up my
remarks.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Speaking in my capacity as a Senator from
Alaska and manager of the bill, I would agree to the unanimous consent
that the Senator may speak but would yield the floor in the event
someone wishes to call up an amendment or speak on the bill. Is that
agreed?
Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes, I would.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator is recognized as in morning business.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I begin by thanking the Senator in the chair for his
leadership in trying to help us move this Defense appropriations bill
through the Congress. It is, of course, an extremely important bill,
and it is a very difficult bill to manage because it is large and
complicated and multidimensional and a great need. I thank the Senator
from Alaska and the Senator from Hawaii for helping us to manage
through this as we try to wrap up this week.
(Ms. Murkowski assumed the Chair.)
Hurricane Katrina
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, one of the reasons I come to the floor
this morning is to speak about an issue that I brought up on the floor,
now many times, and so has the other Senator from Louisiana and Members
of our delegation, as well as Members from the Gulf Coast States that
have been affected by Katrina, to try to see what we can do to get some
aid to our States, directly into the hands of people who can actually
put that money to good use, so we do not leave here this weekend
without having done something very clearly and very specifically.
Now, this Congress has acted with dispatch over the last 4 weeks to
allocate and appropriate money to FEMA, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, that is tasked with the responsibility of managing
disasters such as this when they are of such a magnitude it is really
impossible for individual cities or individual counties or individual
parishes or even regions to handle them.
This storm was just that. It was a category 5 storm, with a surge of
tide that had the highest recorded level at 29 feet of water--a tsunami
basically of 30 feet, approximately--that slammed into the gulf coast
about 32 days ago and devastated the energy coast of this Nation--or a
large part of the energy coast.
Assessments are being done by insurance companies, corporations,
multinational companies, small companies, law enforcement, cities,
parishes, and counties to try to get a handle on the damage, but it is
staggering.
This special edition, which I have been reviewing since I picked it
up yesterday, is done by National Geographic. It is a special edition
on Katrina and Rita. It was contributed to by the Times-Picayune, the
Dallas Morning News, the New York Times, and it truly is remarkable
work: ``Katrina, Why It Became a Man-Made Disaster'' and ``Where It
Could Happen Next.'' It takes us through a series of not just the way
the hurricane formed and how powerful and devastating it was, but how
the levees could have been breached or how the levees might have
collapsed, because that assessment is still being made about how many
houses have been lost, about how many thousands of square miles were
flooded in New Orleans, in Saint Bernard, in Saint Tammany Parish, in
Plaquemines Parish, how the entire parish of Cameron, that had 10,000
structures 8 days ago, now has one structure standing; a courthouse
that was built by the New Deal, the only structure standing in Cameron
Parish.
It talks about how the combination of these two killer storms, and
the neglect on the part of many--cost cutting that obviously did not
pay off--how it has now wrecked this economic powerhouse. It says,
actually, the economic power has been brought to its knees. The center
of that powerhouse would be the State I represent in the Senate, the
State of Louisiana, that is home to the Mississippi River, the greatest
delta on the continent, the greatest river on the continent.
On that river are the largest ports in America. The eye of the first
storm, Katrina, went right over the Port of New Orleans, the South
Louisiana Port, and barely missed the other large port, which is the
Port of Baton Rouge, which hosts the energy industry, the petrochemical
industry, the refining industry, the agriculture industry, the
commercial industry, the maritime industry--the bulk of it in the
Nation. It was a direct hit to the heart of the energy coast.
Not only is Louisiana feeling this, with 2 million people along the
gulf coast displaced--hundreds of thousands of people have lost their
entire home, their entire business; the people of New Orleans, in large
measure, and Saint Bernard and Plaquemines have lost their entire
parish--but everyone in America is feeling this because of the higher
price of goods, the higher price of gasoline, and the higher price of
natural gas.
There are 9,000 miles of pipeline connecting oil and gas exploration
in the Gulf of Mexico. We have been struggling to get those pipelines
back up and running. The trade and commerce of the Port of South
Louisiana, combined with the Port of New Orleans, dwarfs the Port of
Houston, the Ports of New York and New Jersey, and the Port of
Beaumont, TX, which was also hit and has some destruction from Rita--
thank goodness, not the same level of destruction, thank goodness that
we didn't lose the Port of Beaumont or the Port of Houston.
Our ports, from the Port of Lake Charles, from the western side, to
the Port of Iberia, to the Port of Morgan City, to the ports along the
Mississippi River, to the Port of Fourchon, which is the only deepwater
energy port in the Nation right on the gulf, the damage has been
extensive and tremendous. To this day, 30 days after--and we will be
for months and perhaps even years--we are struggling to stand up that
infrastructure.
The long-term building effort is going to be difficult and
complicated. I am sorry to say this because we have been criticized for
saying it, but it is going to be expensive. There is no cheap or easy
way out of it. How we pay for it, what revenues we assign, whether we
raise revenues to do it, use revenues we have, assess new approaches,
borrow the money, in some
[[Page S11175]]
way the Federal Government and State governments and industry have to
come up with the billions of dollars it is going to cost to restore the
infrastructure and the marshland that protects this infrastructure,
that services the economy of the Nation and the world.
Let me try to be as clear as I can on some of these points. There are
only a few ways to get grain out of Kansas and the Midwest. You can put
it on railroads, put it on trucks, or you can put it on big barges. It
is a little slower on the barges, but it is a lot less expensive. You
can move the grain that we supply and literally feed ourselves and the
world with it, but it has to go through on barges, down some rivers,
and the Mississippi River is the River that we primarily use, that the
Missouri and the Ohio run into down the Mississippi for trade around
the world. If this infrastructure is left vulnerable, as it has been by
exposure to the hurricane, if we don't figure out a way to invest
better and more wisely, the commerce of this whole Nation will be
undermined, unless you want to put all the grain that comes from the
Midwest and all the wheat and the corn on trucks and put thousands of
more trucks on a highway system that is already overcrowded, where
people are already wondering how are we going to survive the next few
years on a highway system like this, with trucks stacked up one after
another.
We better keep our river channels open. We better invest in our inner
waterways. We better start investing in more sophisticated lock and dam
systems along the Gulf of Mexico. If we are not going to, then the
other alternative is to abandon the coast and move somewhere else.
Maybe we should consider that. I think it is a foolish idea because you
couldn't accomplish it anyway. I don't know where we would move all the
refineries. We can't even get another State anywhere in the country,
except maybe Arizona, to build a refinery. Nobody wants to build
refineries. Everybody wants to put gas in their car and turn the
electricity on, but we can't get anybody to lay a pipeline, build a
refinery, put up a petrochemical plant. I don't know how Texas and
Louisiana and Mississippi would lift 40 percent of the industry and
relocate it somewhere in the United States, but if some people think
that is a cost-effective way, maybe we should do that.
Having studied this issue for a pretty long time and represented this
State for over 25 years, it is a foolish and foolhardy suggestion. I
have a better one. The better one is a little bit of money every year,
smartly invested, to protect this infrastructure, to restore our
wetlands, to protect one of the greatest cities in the world and the
region that surrounds it and the infrastructure that supports the
commerce and trade for the entire Nation--if we just do a little bit
well every year. Instead, we chose to do other things with our money.
This is a picture of the gulf. This is Mississippi. The title surge
hit the gulf coast of Mississippi 30 feet high, cleared everything in
its path for a half a mile back. We saw this kind of destruction with
Camille. We hoped we would never see it again. But there are
vulnerabilities living on the coast. When a hurricane hits you
directly, this is what it looks like. Right here we had houses and
casinos. We also had a major shipyard that was damaged pretty badly.
You can't do a lot of shipbuilding inland. You have to have some
waterways and build your ships in a place where they have access to
water. Thank goodness we didn't have just one shipyard on the gulf
coast. Thank goodness we had two because the hurricane hit one and not
the other. Avondale is today up and running and building ships for our
military and the private sector.
I don't know if you can see this, but the Presiding Officer knows
because she is from Alaska and they do some oil and gas drilling for
the Nation, we do most of it along the gulf coast. These are the
pipelines that support that industry, as we send fuel and gas and
electricity to Chicago, New York, California, the Midwest, and supply
the energy necessary to keep this economy functioning. We have laid
these pipelines for over 100 years. Maybe we could pick them all up and
move them somewhere else, but I don't think that is going to happen. We
can't even find the money to get a pipeline from Alaska--or figure out
how to get a pipeline from Alaska. How are we going to take up all
these pipelines and move them somewhere else? We don't have a choice.
We have to take some of our general fund dollars, more than we have.
We need to, as I have said for over 10 years, redirect a portion of the
offshore oil and gas revenues that Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and
Alabama contribute to the tune of $5 billion, actually $6 billion a
year last year, $155 billion since the 1950s, redirect some of that
money into restoring our coast that protects this infrastructure and,
working in partnership with industries, large and small, have more
security around the energy infrastructure, whether it is pipelines,
petrochemical plants, or refineries, not just for the protection of the
industry but for the safety of the people who live and work in this
region.
There is a beautiful series produced by Louisiana Public Television
that I will submit for the Record. It is not in written form but in
video form. I am hoping there is some way that I can submit that
officially for the record. When Bienville and Niverville came and
settled Louisiana and claimed it as a colony, they didn't come to
sunbathe on the Mississippi River. They didn't come to put up condos.
They came to secure the delta, the mouth of the greatest river in the
country, for the strategic expansion and economic future of a nation.
They asked people to come to Louisiana in hot, mosquito-ridden
territory, not to sunbathe or to vacation. Who would vacation in a
swamp with mosquitos? We leave the low-lying areas and leave the
mosquitos when we want to vacation and go to the mountains. If you are
lucky to be able to afford a tank of gas in your car, you don't stay in
Louisiana to vacation. You go to Louisiana to work, even though a lot
of people do come to New Orleans to enjoy themselves because it is a
wonderful city. But down in the bayou, people fish, they trap, they
hunt, they skin alligators, they drill for oil and gas, and they lay
pipelines. They build ships, they fabricate so that we can produce jobs
for people in America as well as ourselves.
For 300 years, we have been growing crops, growing sugarcane, growing
cotton, growing soybeans, shipping goods around the world, drilling for
oil and gas, building ships and pipelines, and asking for a little bit
of money, just a little bit, to help us invest in an infrastructure
that doesn't just save us from death and destruction but supports a
nation's future. I have been on this floor so many times giving this
speech that I am positive that every Senator could give this speech
better than I because they have heard it a thousand times. And they
have not just heard it from me. They heard it from Senator Breaux when
he was here. They heard it from Russell Long when he was here. They
have heard it from David Vitter since he has been here. How much more
clear can we be? They heard it from Billy Tauzin when he was chairman
of the Energy Committee in the House. They heard it from Charlie
Melancon who represents this district now. They have heard it from Gene
Taylor who has represented the gulf coast of Mississippi since he was a
kid.
These are the kinds of people who live along the coast. They don't
have a lot. But they do have their pride and their dignity. They have
waited for 31 days now, but they have waited for decades actually for
the Federal Government to recognize they are not in condos, having
lunch at a club, sipping tea on a balcony, watching the waves. These
people don't belong to a country club. They couldn't afford the monthly
dues. They could barely afford gas in their automobile to get out when
storms hit. Why do they live there? No. 1, because they love it; 2,
because they work; 3, because the jobs are there; and 4, you can't move
the jobs. Where would you put them?
Let me show you another picture of people. This is Charlene Veillon
and her son Thearon. This is a sad picture to look at. This is a
picture of them after being told that Charlene's daughter--I am
assuming his sister--who had been driving from Tennessee to the gulf
coast to try to help her family, when no one else would come to help
them, this is when they learned that she died.
For a month and a half the people of the gulf coast have been crying
for
[[Page S11176]]
help, asking for help. I know that we didn't do everything right every
minute of every day. But I can tell you one thing our delegation has
done: It has come down here year after year and laid the case. We are
happy to host the oil and gas industry, we are happy to build
refineries, we are happy to organize our ports to transport goods all
over the world so everybody can benefit. We are even glad we don't have
to take a lot of vacations--some of us couldn't afford to go--to those
highrises in Florida, anyway. But all we want is a little bit of
support of money that we generate to protect us and to protect the
Nation from something such as this disaster.
I have to read news articles from some of the supposedly smartest
magazines in the world telling me the reason this happened is because
the levee board in New Orleans--I am not going to support everything
the levee board did, but I have to read in some supposedly elite
magazines the reason this happened is because the levee board took a
few hundred thousand dollars and built a fountain when they should not
have built a fountain, they should have been building a levee.
I don't know about the fountain, but I can promise you this: $100,000
or $200,000, or $300,000 for building a fountain when they should have
put a few more sandbags on top of the levee would not have prevented
this disaster. What would have prevented this disaster is better
priorities in spending, smarter investments, and a better partnership
between a Federal Government that has decided it has other things to
do, such as building levees in Iraq, building schools in Iraq, and I
cannot get 5 cents to build a school along the gulf coast.
Then I have to have magazines tell me the people in the South are not
self-reliant; we don't know how to walk on our own two legs. I am going
to show a picture of self-reliance. See this family. They may or may
not be related. They are of different colors of skin. Some people are
related who have different skin color, but I don't know. This is how
people all over the gulf coast are living--helping each other out,
sharing the two bedrooms they have, sharing the food they have, not
complaining. But it is my job to complain. I represent them.
Before I keep talking about Louisiana, because people say the Senator
only cares about her State, let me tell you what the last page of this
magazine says, the National Geographic. It is the last page. Pick it up
and read it.
The next Katrina? New Orleans was a hurricane tragedy
waiting to happen.
It describes why this was inevitable. We knew it during Betsy. We
knew it again at 9/11. We have known it for a long time. We didn't do
what we needed to do. But according to NOAA--which is a very excellent
organization, I must say, out of the Commerce Department for which I
have a lot of respect--according to meteorologist Joe Golden, ``the
five places in the U.S. at greatest risk for calamitous hurricanes are:
Tampa Bay, Florida; Mobile, Alabama; Houston, Texas; New York City and
Long Island, New York; and Miami, Florida.''
Wake up, delegations from these States. Many of these Senators have
been helping. Many of these Senators understand the danger.
Why do we have to go through this again? Why do we have to go through
it this time? You can't stop hurricanes, but you can protect yourself.
You can set up a communications system so families who are trying to
help each other will have their cell phones work. You can help your
police officers by giving them radios that function. You can figure out
how to have more redundancy so if your electricity goes down, somebody
can get a message through.
The head of our National Guard from Alabama, during a CNN interview
with me on this subject, said the Senator is right; we are sending
runners in Alabama, as we did in the War of 1812, and it is 2005 and we
do not have a communications system that protects Americans.
I know times are tough in Baghdad. Times are tough on the gulf coast.
This is a picture of a man named Pete. He is holding a 1950s picture
of his grandparents' home in Empire, LA. I think Senator Cochran from
Mississippi has fished off Empire. He knows it well. He fishes a great
deal and respects the environment.
When Pete's grandparents moved here in the 1950s, this camp--which
was in a vulnerable place even before the marsh eroded. It was
vulnerable. I don't know if this was his grandparents' home where they
lived or if they were shrimpers, trappers, or campers, or if this is a
camp, as we call them, where you go on the weekend to try to relax and
get out of the city. Anyway, what you can see beyond this camp is a lot
of marsh. They didn't go out in the middle of the water and build this
camp and come miles by boat to camp, although some do that, but very
few. Most of these camps were attached to land, or they were in the
1950s. But 50 years later, there is no land around them because the
saltwater has intruded because we channeled the Mississippi River, and
the delta cannot replenish itself.
We laid 9,000 miles of pipeline, took all the oil and gas out of the
ground, and did not give anything back to keep the land stable so that
Pete could maybe have a place to take his grandchildren. Of course, the
place is gone.
On page 57 of the National Geographic, there is a great article that
begins ``How the Defenses Break Down.'' It talks about barrier islands.
We have barrier islands all around the coast. We are losing them
rapidly off the coast of South Carolina, North Carolina, Florida,
Georgia, Alabama, and Dolphin Island because we don't take care of our
barrier islands, we don't protect our barrier islands, we don't invest
in coastal erosion projects. We let them wash away into the ocean. Then
we wonder why, when hurricanes come, they destroy a whole region. Every
time a storm comes, we throw a little sandbag on the islands and say we
did something. We are not doing anything.
We used to have hundreds of miles of marshland between New Orleans
and the ocean. Please don't insult the ancestors of my city to think
that they would put a major metropolitan area right on the coast. If
anybody would get the map of the Mississippi River, they had to go up
over 100 miles from the mouth of the river, and they found the highest
ground they could find, and they put the city of New Orleans there.
Amazingly, even in Katrina, Jackson Square did not flood. The
cathedral is still there, and the statue of Jesus is still standing in
front.
They did not put the city on low ground. Three hundred years ago,
they went inland away from the coast to build a city to secure the
westward expansion of the Nation. Thomas Jefferson had the sense to
borrow money from the Treasury, not to spend it on tax cuts, but to
invest it in the Louisiana Purchase at 3 cents an acre. Then Andrew
Jackson went there in 1803 and fought the British again. Not once; we
fought them twice because they knew when we beat them in 1776, they
could come back and take New Orleans and take the country away, and we
fought them again.
But we have a Federal Government for the last couple of years--I have
made some mistakes since I have been here, so I am not the only one; I
am not saying I have not made mistakes. But we have a Federal
Government whose only answer to any problem we have had, whether it is
a recession, depression, or irrational exuberance, a high stock market,
a low stock market, a war or no war, is to give tax cuts.
Let me ask something: Could anybody describe to me how this woman
could take advantage of any tax cut? What would she do? Do you think
she has any money in her IRA she could borrow to help her rebuild her
house? Do you think maybe she could call her accountant and see if he
could figure out a strategy for her to save a few dollars on the next
income tax check she pays? I don't think so.
This woman--I don't know her name, but she looks a lot like my
grandmother before she died. There are grandmothers and grandfathers
all over the gulf coast sitting in chairs just like one looking at
total destruction, and they have to hear from this Congress that we are
about ready to pass yet another tranche of tax cuts, but we cannot send
somebody to help her pick up the debris.
And please don't tell me you are sending faith-based organizations.
And I say that with the greatest respect. You know why? Because the
church that used to be here does not exist any longer. I am certain
some church could
[[Page S11177]]
come from New Jersey or come from New York or come from California, but
this woman's church does not stand any longer.
In my State--this may be Mississippi, I don't know--but in the State
of Louisiana, the Catholic Church, which is the largest church in New
Orleans, is basically telling me and our delegation and any leaders who
will listen that they may have to lay off thousands of workers at the
archdiocese because their churches are destroyed and their schools are
destroyed. But yet we have a Government that wants to say: Let the
faith-based organizations do it. They are faith-based organizations.
They are the Catholic Church. They need help.
We have a bill we have been asking for--and the President has asked
for it as well--and we cannot get this Congress to move to give some
help to some of the children who were in Catholic schools so they can
get through this school year--70,000 of them. We cannot move that bill.
That is why I am on the floor today to talk about a lot of issues. As
Senators come, they may want to talk about the Defense bill, but our
war is right here at home. Our war is right here in the gulf coast.
This debate is about the protection we seek, our security, our way of
life. Millions of people from the gulf coast have given their lives for
this country in war after war, in crisis after crisis, and now we ask
for help and we get $63 billion to FEMA, which cannot seem to function
well enough to get anybody help. So I have come to the floor to say:
OK, let's catch a breath. FEMA is not working that well. Let's not
worry about why now, let's try to fix the problem and take $10 billion
of the $43 billion FEMA has that is sitting there, not getting to any
of the people I showed, take it, and give it through whatever
accountability mechanisms we can come up with, to give people health
care they desperately need, to give relief to our schools that are
about to stagger and collapse--elementary, secondary, and our
universities that are also our major employers, that also have the
brain power that is going to help us rebuild this region; they are
about ready to close their doors--to give direct aid to our sheriffs,
our police, and our firefighters who are desperately trying to keep the
doors open on the cities and counties and communities, large and small,
throughout the gulf coast. Give us a few of those billion dollars we
have given to FEMA, which cannot function, and let us use that money.
And if FEMA needs more money down the line, we can always give them
some more.
But we cannot do that. All we can do is pass a Defense bill, argue
about Defense authorization, take care of the war in Iraq, rebuild
Iraq, but we cannot even focus on rebuilding the gulf coast where
Americans have paid taxes their whole life and cannot get the Federal
Government to act effectively.
I compliment the Senator from Alaska for moving our Defense
appropriations bill. It is an extremely important bill for our Nation,
and he has been very gracious to allow me this time. I am looking to
see if another Senator shows up. I will be happy to end my remarks and
take some time later today. We are on the Defense bill, and we have to
move this bill and, of course, under the rules we only have 30 more
hours of debate and we have to vote on that bill.
The bottom line, I guess, is this: We have been in negotiations with
the White House and with the Republican leadership to pass something
before we leave, something that is substantive but also in some ways
symbolic, that somebody in Washington is hearing what people from the
gulf coast are saying, which is, We know FEMA was funded, but we need
help now.
FEMA is not well led, even though we have a new leader and he is
doing a better job than the former one. It is not well resourced. It is
not well organized, and it is not being that well coordinated at home.
We can fix that, I am confident, over time. I am certain we have
learned some of the mistakes that we have made with FEMA, and we can
fix it; FEMA can be fixed, and we will have some time to do that. But
right now, we need to get help to the people of Louisiana and the gulf
coast.
We have asked for $1.5 billion for our State and local governments so
that they can keep their doors open, not lay off their core workforce,
either their police, their fire, their permitting offices, the support
that a city or county needs to function, so that over the next few
months and few years, we can actually rebuild our towns.
Last night, from what I understand, the White House offered $300
million, but $300 million is not enough to help the towns that are
about to have to close their doors, including the city of New Orleans,
which is struggling to stay open and to track people back to the third
or fourth of the city that can function that is out of water.
The mayor announced yesterday that he has to lay off 3,000 people. We
do not need to be laying off people. We need to be hiring people. There
is enough work to be done. Just imagine 90,000 square miles of
destruction. Does anybody doubt that there is not a lot of work that
could be done? We do not need to be laying off public employees and
laying off people in the private sector. We need to be stabilizing
those who are working now and then be smart, strategic, wise, careful,
and accountable as we hire help to stand up a region that is not just
for the people who live there but for the whole Nation. Does anyone
doubt that there is enough work to be done?
Let me show a picture of New Orleans. This is what parts of it looked
like only a few weeks ago. It goes on for miles and miles, water
standing 6 feet, 8 feet, 10 feet, interstates underwater. Does anybody
doubt that there is a lot of work to be done? Why are we laying off
people anywhere? I will say why--because sales taxes cannot be
collected from empty buildings. Sales taxes cannot be collected from
people who no longer live in their house and there is not a WalMart or
a mom-and-pop store to shop within miles. How does a city with a $40
million monthly payroll exist for more than a month or two?
If somebody says, Well, they can borrow the money, let me talk about
that for a minute because I was a State treasurer. I know a little bit
about this issue. The constitution of the State of Louisiana smartly
does not allow the State to borrow for operating expenses. Isn't that
unique. We can only borrow money to build highways and invest in
capital infrastructure. It is a very smart and wise restriction because
if there are not restrictions like that, we end up being like the U.S.
Government, which borrows to give tax cuts to people who did not even
ask for them.
I am sorry we cannot organize a constitutional referendum in the next
30 days. Even if we could organize a constitutional referendum in the
next 30 days, there are no polling places for people to vote, and if we
tried to find our voters, we could not find them. So I am a little
confused about how we would do that.
The State of Mississippi does not have that same restriction. I
understand they have borrowed $500 million. So this woman right here,
who I am pretty sure is from Mississippi--and I am not criticizing
Mississippi. They have their own plans, and maybe they are great. But
this woman will have to pay that $500 million back. I do not believe
that is a great idea. I do not think she has enough money to put food
on her table the next couple of months. If that is what they want to
do, I do not know how they are going to pay this $500 million back, but
I promise they are either going to cut programs this woman benefits
from or she is going to get charged directly for it. That might be a
good plan. I would not support something like that.
My State cannot borrow the money, and even if we could, we have a
billion-dollar shortfall at the Federal level because the income is not
coming in. The oil wells are not producing, so we do not get our
severance taxes. The ports are crippled, so we are not getting that
revenue. The sales taxes are way down, and the expenses are way up.
I have listened to the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the
Wall Street Journal tell me the people of Louisiana are not self-
reliant. Why can't we just fix our own problem? First, it is not our
problem, it is the Nation's problem. The last time I looked, we were
the United States of America. I am not sure we are anymore, but that is
what we were the last time I said the Pledge of Allegiance.
Either people want me to keep talking or they do not have anything to
say because nobody else is on the floor, so I will talk for a few more
minutes and then I am going to sit down and just
[[Page S11178]]
hold my time. I will talk more about the general subject, but I wish to
be clear about why I am standing here and what we have asked for. We
have asked for some help, just anything that we can take home before we
leave so that people will have some hope that somebody up here is
listening to them.
I have asked to pull up the Grassley-Baucus bill, which has been
unanimously approved by Republicans and Democrats in the Senate, not a
Democratic bill--thank God led by a great Senator, a Republican from
Iowa who is the chairman of the Finance Committee. He understands, even
though he is not from Louisiana, how much people are suffering, and he
wants to help. So he and Senator Baucus, leaders that they are, 3 weeks
ago, with the help of Senator Lincoln from Arkansas, put a good bill
together. It cost about $13 billion. If there were some things
eliminated, we could scale it back to about $6 billion or $7 billion.
When I say eliminated, there is some help for all the States. Maybe we
just eliminate helping everyone else and help ourselves. We are trying
to be generous. If other Senators want to try to help their States, who
am I to say they cannot help their States. But if the Senate agrees to
just help Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas, fine with me.
They put a bill together, we passed it unanimously, and we cannot get
any action on that bill. So we have asked for that.
We have asked for some education money to keep our schools open. We
are trying not to ask too much because every time we ask for something,
we are told we are greedy, we are looters, we are not self-reliant, how
dare we ask on behalf of the people who have nothing for a little money
out of the treasury, from their own money that they put in the
treasury, how dare we ask for it. I am not going to stop asking, and I
do not care how many editorials are written about me and my State at
this point. Just go ahead and keep writing them.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator from Louisiana yield for a question?
Ms. LANDRIEU. I would be happy to.
Mr. DURBIN. At the outset, I would like to say that I left the floor
last night, about 12 hours ago, around 11. Senator Landrieu of
Louisiana was on the floor last night. As I left, I said that she has
shown such a passion and commitment to the poor people of her State of
Louisiana who have been through this hurricane. I know she has tried to
work within the system, she has tried to work within the Senate, and
she has tried to move things along in a peaceful, bipartisan way. I
sensed in her appearance last night and her appearance on the floor now
that she is reaching a level of frustration and concern that this
Senate is going to go home tonight or tomorrow and be gone for 10 days
having done nothing to address the important issues she is raising.
What the Senator has brought to our attention is the fact that we
have a bipartisan proposal. Senator Grassley, a Republican of Iowa, and
Senator Baucus, a Democrat of Montana, on the Finance Committee, have
come up with a proposal to provide basic health care for the evacuees
and survivors of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita, basic health
care. The Senator has come to the Chamber repeatedly--I have seen it--
trying to at least bring this to a vote. That is all she is asking for,
bring it to a vote.
It is my understanding that at this moment in time, she has no
commitment from the Republican leadership in the Senate to even bring
this matter for a vote before we go home for 10 days on a break. I ask
the Senator from Louisiana if she could in the most general terms tell
us what kind of health care she is trying to provide to these people.
Some have characterized it as luxurious, over-the-top health care for
people who do not really need it. In fact, I heard on the floor last
night one of the Senators say: Well, they do not really need this.
Could the Senator from Louisiana spell out for us what she is looking
to achieve, what this bipartisan proposal would mean to the poor people
who have lost their homes, lost their worldly possessions, seen their
families torn apart, and are living in shelters somewhere around that
part of our country?
Ms. LANDRIEU. I would be happy to, and I thank the Senator for his
leadership because the Grassley-Baucus bill does a couple of important
things that are essential for the rebuilding and emergency needs of a
population--not just the poor but the middle income and those who had
private insurance the day before Katrina hit. The Baucus-Grassley bill
allows the States to know that they are going to be reimbursed for the
care they are providing to people who have virtually no insurance. For
a State such as Louisiana, whose legislature may be meeting in the next
few weeks, with a billion-dollar shortfall looming, I say to Senator
Durbin, it is critical that the States of Louisiana and Mississippi and
Alabama and Texas have some idea now about what the Federal Government
is going to do regarding their insurance. We share it 70/30. The State
cannot put up a 30-percent match. This bill waives that match so that
our States can start making good budget decisions at a very difficult
time, in addition to providing health care for those who are 200
percent or below of poverty--which in our State is only $18,000 or
$20,000--to make sure that people have health insurance.
But for middle-income families, working families, and even wealthy
families that had health insurance, this bill allows them--even if
their employers have gone under or taken bankruptcy or closed their
doors and laid them off--to keep their health insurance for a few
months, for 6 months or 12 months, depending on their category.
A Senator said on the floor, Senator Durbin, that people can get
health insurance, they can get health care. Yes, in some way; they can
go to an emergency room and wait for 3 days. But if they want to go to
their doctor's office to whom they have been going for their whole
life, and take their child to their pediatrician and they now don't
have health insurance, unless we pass this bill, they can't go knock on
the door of their pediatrician, for example, unless they give them a
credit card or cash because there is no health insurance without the
Baucus-Grassley bill. People who don't have a home, don't have a church
or don't have a school now do not even have health care because we have
to go home on a 10-day break and leave them wondering where they are
going to get their medicine. That is what the bill does, I say to
Senator Durbin.
Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask the Senator from Louisiana, through
the Chair, we have been through disasters before in America. We faced
9/11, that terrible day in our history when 3,000 Americans lost their
lives. I would like to ask the Senator from Louisiana, if I am not
mistaken, didn't we say we were going to come in and help those
families who may have been in the same circumstance, where their place
of employment just exploded and disappeared? Also, I would ask the
Senator from Louisiana, when we had an earthquake in California, in
Northridge, didn't we step in and say we are going to provide housing
vouchers to people displaced because of earthquakes?
I ask this of the Senator because I don't quite understand this
double standard. Why, if the worst natural disaster in modern memory
occurred a few weeks ago, are we in the midst of debating the most
basic things people need in crisis: health care, housing, cash so they
can buy the basic necessities of life? Why are we facing this double
standard, when America's heart was broken by the scenes we saw day
after day and night after night on the television screen, coming from
your hometown, your neighbors and their suffering?
Ms. LANDRIEU. I do not know, I say to Senator Durbin. That is a
puzzlement for us. I do not have a good answer for that. All I can say
is there are 2 million people displaced, many towns are destroyed, many
communities, both urban and suburban, rural as well as highly dense.
Neighborhoods of black and white, Hispanic and Asian, poor and middle-
income are wondering the same thing.
Why does Congress keep giving money to FEMA? FEMA is not functioning
very well. So when our Governors and our mayors and our sheriffs ask
for a little bit of help with health insurance and education and the
basics to turn running water on--we have had enough bottled water.
Please don't send us any more bottled water. We have plenty.
We need to turn the faucets on so water will come out so a small
business
[[Page S11179]]
that wants to operate can actually function with some water. You cannot
have a business operating without water. That is what we need.
We have asked for these emergency things, to be told we do not have
the money. I am going to sit down. In this amendment, we are asking for
four or five things, for education, for health care, for immediate
needs, for help for some hospitals that stayed up. Three hospitals
stayed up the whole time in the region. If we do not help them, these
hospitals will close, employees will be laid off, and whatever modest
health care system we have for the region will basically be
dysfunctional.
But what we really want--we want those things, but what we want is
some action taken before we leave. We can vote on these individually.
We did get a commitment from the administration that they will do more
than $300 million. Because if we do not get more than $300 million
before we leave here, the city of New Orleans, the Archdiocesan--the
Catholic Diocese--or St. Tammany Parish, or some parts of it, or
Plaquemines or St. Bernard or any number of other places, I say to
Senator Durbin, will have to lay off workers who then will lose their
health insurance, lose whatever means they have of keeping themselves
and their families intact, and the situation will be spiraling
downward, not spiraling upward.
The Senator has been very gracious. I am going to reserve the
remainder of whatever time I have, but that is what we are asking for,
and I hope we can get something done before we leave for this week-and-
a-half break.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, we now have the preliminary scanning of
the amendments that have been passed by the Parliamentarian. We would
be pleased to share that information with any Senator who has an
amendment. The Senator from Louisiana does have the floor until someone
is ready to offer an amendment or speak on the bill. We urge Members to
come and start the process. We are prepared to handle amendments. On
some amendments we will make a point of order as to germaneness, but we
are trying to be as broad as possible in consideration of Members'
amendments so we can finish late today, if possible.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to yield to
Senator Landrieu at a later moment when she comes to the floor, 30
minutes or more of the hour--30 minutes, I will yield to Senator
Landrieu, postcloture.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). The Senator from Washington.
Transportation, Treasury, HUD, and General Government Appropriations
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to urge the Senate
leadership to call up H.R. 3058, the Transportation, Treasury, HUD, and
General Government appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006, once the
Department of Defense appropriations bill is done.
We all want to make our country strong again. We all want to make our
communities strong again. One way to do that is to invest in our
transportation infrastructure, in public housing, and in the other
priorities that are part of that important bill.
Every day we go without a Transportation-Treasury bill is a day that
we fall short of making the investments we need to make to strengthen
this country. We are not talking about our physical infrastructure, we
are talking about our own safety. As I will show in a moment, the
failure of the Senate to bring up the Transportation-Treasury bill
could actually be threatening the safety of every American who flies on
a commercial air carrier.
A floor debate on the Transportation-Treasury bill is long overdue.
The House of Representatives passed this bill more than 3 months ago.
The Senate Appropriations Committee reported this bill almost 2\1/2\
months ago. Today we are almost a full week into fiscal year 2006, and
still the Senate has been denied an opportunity to consider and debate
and pass this important bill. The Senate needs to debate and pass this
bill so we can avoid the unruly and unfair process of funding the
Government through another Omnibus appropriations bill. The Senate
needs to debate and pass this bill so all of the Senators, not just
those on the Appropriations Committee, can have an opportunity to
consider and, if necessary, amend that bill. The Senate needs to debate
and pass this bill so we can urgently address the critical needs of our
transportation and public housing sectors, including the pressing need
to protect the safety of all of our citizens.
Mr. President, 2002 was the most recent year in which the
Transportation appropriations bill was sent to the President as a
freestanding measure. I was chair of the subcommittee at that time.
Ever since then, the funding for the agencies under the subcommittee's
jurisdiction has been enacted as part of a series of unwieldy Omnibus
appropriations bills. The process by which these bills were put
together did not reflect well on the Senate. It did not reflect well on
the Congress as a whole.
Last year's process was the worst of all. Last year, the
Transportation, Treasury, and General Government appropriations bill
for fiscal year 2005 was never even debated in the Senate. Once the
appropriations bill was reported by the Appropriations committee, the
bill languished for months before Congress went home for an election.
Then, just before Thanksgiving, Congress reconvened and tried, in 3
days, to assemble a final conference report for dozens of major Federal
agencies, even though the Senate had never even passed many of the
appropriations bills that funded those agencies.
I think Members of all political stripes in both the House and in the
Senate recognized how poorly the public and the Congress were served by
that process. In January, everyone said we will not do that again. We
heard it from the leadership of both the House and the Senate and from
the new leadership of the House and the Senate appropriations
committees. I am glad they said it back in January. But from where I
sit as the ranking member of the Transportation-Treasury Subcommittee,
it sure looks to me as though we are now heading toward another Omnibus
appropriations bill.
The bottom line is this. The Transportation-Treasury bill has been
sitting on this calendar, ready to be called up, for almost 2\1/2\
months. If we want to avoid another Omnibus appropriations bill, we
need to call up and pass that bill as soon as we are done with this
Defense bill.
This process of sending bills approved by the Appropriations
Committee directly to conference without appropriate debate on the
Senate floor is not just grossly unfair to Democratic Senators, it is
grossly unfair to all of the 72 Senators who do not sit on the
Appropriations Committee. The appropriations bill that Senator Bond and
I are recommending to the Senate was approved unanimously by the
Appropriations Committee back in mid-July. It proposes to spend over
$137 billion.
These are not just tax dollars that were collected in Missouri or
collected in Washington or collected in States represented by members
of the Appropriations Committee, these are tax dollars that were
collected from all Americans. Since that is true, every Senator should
have the opportunity to debate this bill and pass judgment on our
recommendations. Every Senator should be given an opportunity to amend
that bill.
We need to avoid another Omnibus to ensure a fair process. There are
also some very practical programmatic reasons why we must call up and,
importantly, pass this Transportation-Treasury bill as soon as
possible. Now the Government is functioning under a continuing
resolution. Under the requirements of that resolution, programs that
are funded in the Transportation-Treasury bill are all operating at
either the lower of the funding levels passed by the House of
Representatives back in June or at the level the program was funded in
fiscal year 2005. Some observers have speculated we could be operating
under this continuing resolution until Christmas.
It would take hours for me to list all the programs and national
needs that will suffer if they are required to operate for any length
of time under the funding restrictions of this continuing resolution.
If we do not get agreement soon to debate the Transportation-Treasury
bill, I may well take up a lot of the Senate floor time to explain each
and every one of them.
But today I want to focus on one topic and that is the topic of
aviation
[[Page S11180]]
safety and what our failure to move this Transportation-Treasury
appropriations bill means for millions of Americans who travel by air
in this country today. Over the last few years, our national aviation
enterprise--our airlines, our airports, and the FAA--have been under an
unprecedented amount of financial pressure. We now have no fewer than
six airlines in bankruptcy. If jet fuel prices do not start declining
soon, that number could grow even higher.
In the interests of cutting costs, airlines on which you and I travel
have been cutting back on staff, have been renouncing their pension
plans, and have been outsourcing an increasing percentage of their
aircraft maintenance.
I know many other Senators, including myself, travel home almost
every weekend, and we have all noticed the changes in the service the
airlines offer. Staffing is leaner than ever and we have a lot of
flight delays. Mechanical problems are on the rise. One important area
of cost cutting has been the airlines' continuing efforts to contract
out their aircraft maintenance activities to third parties, including,
you all should know, overseas vendors known as foreign repair stations.
In the past, airlines maintained their planes with experienced
veteran unionized mechanics. Today, they outsource more than 50
percent, more than half of their maintenance work, to independent
operators. Airlines such as Northwest send some of their aircraft as
far as Singapore and Hong Kong for heavy maintenance.
We have one major carrier, Jet Blue, that sends a large portion of
their Airbus fleet to be maintained in El Salvador, Central America.
That is where their planes are maintained.
America West Airlines, now merged with U.S. Airways, does the same
thing.
Many of us watched in fear a few weeks ago when a Jet Blue A-320 was
required to make an emergency landing at the Los Angeles International
Airport. As we all watched on television, we saw its front landing gear
facing sideways, at 90 degrees. That was not the first time the landing
gear didn't engage correctly. In fact, it was not the 5th time, it was
not even the 10th time, it was the 14th time that the FAA learned of
the front landing gear of an A-320 aircraft not engaging correctly.
According to the FAA, these 14 dangerous and frightening mishaps have
occurred as a result of 5 separate and distinct causes.
It is the job of the FAA inspectors to find out why these problems
happen and to force the plane's manufacturer to fix that problem. We
cannot afford to have an understaffed or an overwhelmed FAA safety
office.
Our airlines are going through a period of dramatic and rapid change.
That puts an extraordinary amount of stress on the aircraft inspection
function of the Federal Aviation Administration.
We have received a disturbing series of reports from the DOT
Inspector General, from the Government Accounting Office, and the
National Transportation Safety Board citing deficiencies with the FAA's
inspection effort.
In 2004, the NTSB found that deficient maintenance by an outside
contractor and inadequate oversight by the airline and the FAA
contributed to the 2003 crash of a commuter flight to Charlotte, NC.
That crash killed 21 people.
The DOT Inspector General first identified serious deficiencies with
the FAA's inspection efforts back in 2002. Just this past June, the IG
reported that many of those deficiencies have still not been adequately
addressed.
The IG found that the FAA focused too much attention on the airline's
dwindling in-house maintenance function and not enough attention on the
outsourced maintenance activities of their foreign contractors.
The IG found that the FAA inspectors were spending too much time
inspecting maintenance facilities during the day, while a majority of
the maintenance activities are actually conducted at night.
The IG found the FAA was doing an insufficient job of its
surveillance of financially distressed or rapidly growing airlines. And
the IG found the FAA was not able to meet its own standards for
frequent inspections because it was short staffed.
In just the last few weeks, the FAA staffing shortage has become even
more critical. As these airlines enter bankruptcy, the FAA is
automatically required to step up its inspections of bankrupt carriers.
Today, the FAA must give heightened scrutiny to the six bankrupt
carriers, as well as four other carriers that are in merger
proceedings.
Following the liquidation of Eastern Airlines several years ago, a
number of dramatic and horrifying revelations came out regarding the
maintenance shortcuts that Eastern took in the interest of conserving
cash in its waning days. The entire aviation community vowed that there
would not ever be a repeat of the Eastern Airlines experience.
I would think with the external recommendations and the record that I
have just cited, the FAA would now be rapidly hiring more inspectors to
keep up with its growing and challenging workload. Unfortunately, over
the course of the last year, the exact opposite has been the case.
Despite the fact that the Congress granted the FAA's inspections
office every penny that was sought in the President's budget for fiscal
year 2005, the office has been required to downsize by roughly 300
inspectors over the course of just this last year. That is right. As
the requirements on our FAA inspectors to maintain safety in our skies
has increased dramatically, the FAA has been downsizing its inspection
force each and every month.
This unacceptable situation is one that Senator Bond and I pursued as
part of our hearings with Secretary Mineta this year--and the House
Appropriations Committee did the same. I am proud to say that on a
bipartisan and bicameral basis, both the Transportation-Treasury bill
passed by the House and the bill that has been reported by the Senate
Appropriations Committee seeks to rectify the situation.
The House Appropriations Committee provided this office with an
increase of $4 million over the President's budget request and
committed those funds to the hiring of additional inspectors.
The Senate provided an increase of $8 million over the President's
request, and we directed that funding be used to restore safety
inspector staffing reductions that occurred during fiscal year 2005.
Personally, I still question whether we should be doing more in this
area since we have now had two more airlines in bankruptcy since we
marked up that appropriations bill.
But still, these actions on the part of the House and Senate
committees indicate that Congress, on a bipartisan and a bicameral
basis, is prepared to address this glaring safety vulnerability, even
if the administration is not.
With that said, we can't make any progress in tackling this problem
if we do not call up and pass the Transportation-Treasury
appropriations bill.
Under the current continuing resolution, the agency can make no
progress in restoring the necessary FAA inspectors to a level that
could better protect us.
As I said, this was just one of several reasons it is imperative for
the Senate leadership to call up the Transportation-Treasury bill.
I again implore the Senate Republican leadership to call up the
Transportation-Treasury bill immediately upon the completion of this
Defense appropriations bill.
We have to have the opportunity to debate this bill, not just for the
fairness of our colleagues and to maintain the integrity of the Senate,
but we must debate this bill and pass it so we can ensure the safety of
our citizens.
VAWA Reauthorization
Mr. President, I rise today to speak about tbe Violence Against Women
Act, which the Senate this week passed by unanimous consent.
For the last few months, we have been talking about reauthorizing the
Violence Against Women Act, or VAWA, as it is better known.
Back in 1994, through this historic legislation, we created a
national strategy for dealing with domestic violence, establishing a
community-wide response. Since we took that historical step, VAWA has
been a great success in coordinating victims' advocates, social service
providers, and law enforcement
[[Page S11181]]
professionals to meet the immediate challenges of combating domestic
violence. We can clearly see that VAWA has been tremendously effective.
But there is still work to be done to protect victims of domestic
violence--particularly when it comes to helping victims break the cycle
of violence. And that is what I am here to talk about today--breaking
the cycle of violence.
Financial insecurity is a major factor in ongoing domestic violence.
Too often, victims who are not economically self sufficient are
forced to choose between protecting themselves and their children on
one hand, and keeping a roof over their head on the other hand. It is
critical that we help guarantee the economic security of victims of
domestic or sexual violence who cannot pay the rent without their
abusive partner, or who have been forced to leave their job because of
abuse. Without our help, economic dependency will continue to force
these victims to stay in abusive relationships.
The purpose of the Violence Against Women Act is to reduce domestic
violence. The reauthorization legislation addresses several new issues
that will help prevent and reduce domestic violence. One such--way as I
already mentioned--is a national health care strategy. But the
legislation as introduced contained another important tool to helping
reduce domestic violence--it contained provisions that would have
allowed victims to take up to 10 days of unpaid leave per year to
address domestic violence.
Over 40 percent of American workers get no paid time off. They can't
use vacation time to address their abuse, and missing work puts them in
danger of losing their job.
This provision would have allowed these victims, and many others, to
take unpaid leave to get a protective order, see a doctor, or make a
safety plan to address their abuse. But sadly, amidst opposition and
complaints of jurisdictional issues, these provisions were stripped
from the bill during consideration in the Judiciary Committee.
The legislation that was reported out of committee--which the Senate
just passed by unanimous consent--does not contain any economic
protections for victims.
I did not give up on these protections easily. After the leave
provisions were dropped, I asked the managers of this bill to include
another economic security provision, unemployment insurance.
Specifically, I asked them to provide victims of domestic violence,
dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking with unemployment
insurance if they have to leave their job or are fired because of
abuse.
We know that a job is often the only way for victims to build up
resources for themselves to eventually leave a violent relationship,
but abuse and stalking can make it impossible for a victim to keep a
job.
We know of cases where abusers will deliberately sabotage a victim's
ability to work, placing harassing phone calls, cutting off their
transportation, showing up at the workplace and threatening employees.
When a victim loses a job because of violence, that victim should
have access to unemployment insurance compensation benefits.
Are you aware that a woman is eligible for unemployment benefits if
she has to leave her job because her husband had to relocate? But in
many States, if a woman has to leave her job because she is fleeing a
dangerous situation, she cannot receive the same benefits. That is
unacceptable.
Currently, 28 States plus the District of Columbia already provide
some type of unemployment insurance assistance for victims of domestic
violence. We can offer that same protection to victims in every State,
and we have an obligation to do it. But, since this provision is not
included in VAWA either, we need to do it here and now.
It is important to recognize that this violence goes far beyond the
home, too often following victims into the workplace, where it doesn't
just hurt victims--it hurts their employers, too.
In fact, from decreased workplace productivity to increased health
insurance cost, the data shows that domestic violence is bad for
business. It has real and painful costs on employers. So for those
Members who want to weigh this measure against its economic merits, the
facts are clear.
Providing the tools that will allow abused women to escape abusive
relationships can help offset billions of dollars in costs that
domestic violence imposes on businesses.
As many of my colleagues know, I have been working on the issue of
economic security for victims for many years. I have spoken with
victims and their advocates, and employers. In fact, just this past
Tuesday in my State of Washington, I held a roundtable discussion to
meet with stakeholders. I heard from an employer--and owner of a small
business in Snohomish County--who talked about the importance of
flexible schedules and leave policies that allow employees to address
their abuse. He said that helping them address their situations helps
his bottom line.
I also heard from someone who works at the employment security
department, who said that the numbers do not suggest that women are
abusing unemployment insurance. And I heard from a survivor, who shared
her story and talked about the crucial importance of these economic
protections.
These are the voices we must hear. And these are the stories we must
learn from and let guide our work here in the Senate.
I am going to keep coming to the Senate as many times as it takes,
and I will tell these stories until my colleagues realize this is an
issue that needs to be addressed. We need to provide these victims with
the economic tools to help escape their dangerous situation.
For a long time, violence against women was considered a private
matter. That attitude hurt women. Today, stopping domestic violence is
everyone's business. That is in large part due to the Violence Against
Women Act which I was very proud to work on and help pass. For the
first time, the Violence Against Women Act recognized domestic violence
as a violent crime and a national public health crisis.
Economic protections are the next logical step in the progress we
have been making in fighting domestic violence. Unfortunately, many of
my colleagues have not realized the critical importance of providing
these economic protections. I brought this issue up last year when the
Senate was considering the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. I tried to
amend that bill with my Security and Financial Empowerment, SAFE, Act,
which contains all the economic protections I have talked about today.
I was told then it wasn't the right time to address preventing violence
against women. My amendment was defeated on a party-line vote. I am
here again talking about how the Senate is failing to address this
issue and failing to help prevent domestic violence by overlooking
these economic provisions.
I reiterate to my colleagues that I will continue to come to the
Senate and talk about how critical this issue is in helping victims get
out of abusive relationships. I will continue to introduce legislation
and offer amendments providing economic protections to victims. I will
continue to ask whether the Senators in this Chamber are serious about
talking about the next crucial step to help victims of abuse. I urge
the conferees on the Violence Against Women Act to send the powerful
message to victims that they understand how important these economic
protections are by including them in the conference report on VAWA.
I yield the floor and 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 Coburn amendment the pending
amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on
the Coburn amendment commence at noon and prior thereto there be a
period of 10 minutes equally divided with no second-degree amendments
in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, in the interim, if any Senator wishes to
discuss an amendment, we are pleased to
[[Page S11182]]
proceed. We will accommodate any Senator with regard to amendments they
wish to discuss. We discussed this matter last night with Senator
Coburn, and he agreed we could initiate a vote on his amendment
sometime around noon. We would like to proceed on that basis.
I once again urge Senators to present their amendments or work with
us with regard to the package we are now discussing on amendments which
will be accepted without debate.
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. I wish to announce to the Senate my intention to move to
make a point of order against all amendments that have been indicated
by the Parliamentarian to be not germane commencing at 2 o'clock. So if
any Senator wishes to discuss that category of amendments, we would be
pleased to discuss them either prior to this vote or after the vote. We
would like to have a decision made, if possible, as to how many more
amendments we will deal with today.
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.
Amendments Nos. 1943, as Modified; and 1997, En Bloc
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send to the desk the first managers'
package for the day. I will present it now. We offer, for Senator Reed
of Rhode Island, amendment No. 1943, a sense of the Senate on increased
personnel end strengths, and it has been modified; for Senator
Mikulski, amendment No. 1997, for laser marksmanship training. I ask
unanimous consent that these amendments be considered en bloc.
Mr. INOUYE. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendments be agreed to en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
amendments are agreed to en bloc.
The amendments were agreed to en bloc, as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 1943, as modified
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on the transfer of amounts
for increased personnel strengths for the Army and the Marine Corps
from Additional War-Related Appropriations to the recurring
appropriations for fiscal year 2006)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. SENSE OF SENATE ON TRANSFER OF FUNDS FOR INCREASED
PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR THE ARMY AND MARINE
CORPS.
(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) A long-term increase in the personnel end strengths for
active duty personnel of the Army and the Marine Corps is
necessary in order to carry out the current missions of the
Army and the Marine Corps and to relieve current strains on
Army and Marine Corps forces.
(2) The cost of the increase in such end strengths is
foreseeable and should be included in the annual budget of
the President for each fiscal year, as submitted to Congress
pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, in
order to provide a full and honest accounting to the American
people of the personnel costs of the Army and the Marine
Corps.
(3) The inclusion in the annual budget of the President for
each fiscal year of the costs of an increase in such end
strengths will permit the Army and Marine Corps to plan for
and accommodate the additional troops contemplated by such
increased end strengths without reducing other important
programs.
(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that
the additional amounts to be required for increases in the
personnel end strengths for active duty personnel of the Army
and the Marine Corps for fiscal year 2006 should be
transferred from amounts appropriated by title IX for the
Military Personnel, Army, Military Personnel, Marine Corps,
Operation and Maintenance, Army, and Operation and
Maintenance, Marine Corps, and Operation and Maintenance,
Defense-Wide, accounts to the amounts appropriated for the
applicable accounts in titles I and II.
AMENDMENT NO. 1997
(Purpose: To provide that, of the amount made available under title III
for the Air Force for other procurement, up to $3,000,000 may be made
available for the Laser Marksmanship Training System)
On page 220, after line 25, add the following:
Sec. 8116. Of the amount appropriated by title III under
the heading ``Other Procurement, Air Force'', up to
$3,000,000 may be made available for the Laser Marksmanship
Training System.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, 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. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2005
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, Senator Levin and I are currently
conducting a hearing of the Armed Services Committee. Both of us
believed it was imperative to come to the Chamber and express to the
Senate our strong objection to the amendment offered by our
distinguished colleague, Senator Coburn. I give this by way of
background.
The Committee on Armed Services for some time has been, frankly,
encouraging the Department to take steps to try to put in place a
system that would revise the older means by which travel was
accommodated for members of the Department and others. It is a very
extensive number of individuals who are affected. The Department did
put in place a program, albeit rather slowly. Nevertheless, it is now
in place.
Congress, through the years, has criticized the Department for not
providing better business practices, specifically for the inadequate
oversight of their travel programs. Criticism centered around a growing
number of separate, nonintegrated travel systems which did not provide
the information required for DOD or congressional oversight. Therefore,
the Defense Travel System was created by the DOD to address these
criticisms and the desperate need to make this system work more cost-
effectively.
Comparing the Defense Travel System to the legacy systems is
inappropriate because the Defense Travel System performs different
functions. The legacy systems are travel reservation systems. The DTS,
as it is known, reengineers these legacy systems into a travel and
financial management system which links 30 defense data and financial
processing systems with the consequent lower transaction and processing
fees and lower personnel costs. DTS is saving both people and money. A
return to the legacy systems will require additional people, which is
not funded. As DTS is further implemented, additional savings will be
achieved.
Our joint plea is to allow DTS to remain in place and give it a
reasonable chance to function and prove its goals. According to the
GAO, the ``continued use of the existing legacy travel systems results
in underutilization of DTS and affects the savings that DTS was planned
to achieve.'' This includes paying higher processing costs through the
legacy systems' manual travel vouchers as opposed to the processing of
the travel vouchers electronically through DTS.
The GAO and the Department of Defense have briefed the Armed Services
Committee staff that they believe DTS should be given a reasonable
opportunity to continue to resolve the Department's travel programs.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia for his
comments.
This amendment does not eliminate DTS. It says that instead of
continuing to pay $40 or $50 million a year for the 5.6 million
travelers who travel, we will pay a fee based on DTS's operations. The
Federal Government doesn't own this program. In fact, anybody who looks
at the development of this program will say it is way too expensive
[[Page S11183]]
to have been accomplished in the way it was accomplished. That is
another issue. That is contracting within the DOD, and there are
problems with that.
I remind the most distinguished Senator from Virginia, this doesn't
eliminate DTS. It allows it to continue to function. But what it says
is we are not going to continue to pay money for a program we don't
own, and we will start paying it on a per-travel basis.
What are the facts around it? Three hundred and seventy-five thousand
out of 5.6 million travel vouchers last year went through the DTS
system. That is $1,500 per episode, not including the travel. So what
we actually have is a system way more expensive than any system that
has been developed in the private sector.
I am not against using the DTS system. I am all for giving it a
chance to save us money. We have invested in it. What this amendment
says is that we don't eliminate DTS; we just start paying on a per-
travel basis and a per-utilization basis. That way, we don't continue
to spend $50 million a year for a program we don't own. We should own
it for what we pay for it, and there shouldn't be any cost.
I would be happy to modify my amendment to what would meet with the
needs of the Senator from Virginia, but I don't believe we should
continue to spend, in the contracting sequence this has gone through,
the same amount of money. If we allow DTS to continue to be out there
and utilize the reporting capability of it but pay it on a per-ticket
use rather than a blank check for a contract, the taxpayer will get
much more benefit from it. If it performs, the contractor will make
more money. If it doesn't perform, we will save a ton of money for the
country. That is the purpose of the amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has the floor.
Mr. COBURN. I am happy to yield.
Mr. STEVENS. We entered a time limit to have this vote occur at 12.
In view of the exchange that is going on--and another Senator also
wants to talk--I ask unanimous consent that the vote take place at
12:10 and the time between now and then be divided between Senator
Coburn and anyone who wishes to speak on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I must say, I am impressed with the
thoroughness with which our colleague has researched this issue and the
fervor with which he speaks. But I pose this question: The Department
of Defense estimates it will cause a 3-year delay and cost some $65
million to change the contract structure. I reiterate my strong
opposition to the amendment because I don't think the Department has
had the time operating DTS to adequately prove the principles and the
goals they wished to achieve.
I recognize other colleagues wish to speak. I thank my colleague for
the opportunity to have a colloquy.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, 3 more years? We have spent 7 years and
$500 million on this system. That is a half a billion dollars. That is
$2 for every man, woman, and child in this country for a travel system
that you could have bought off the shelf for $150 million in 2 or 3
years. The contracting issue is a different issue. If it is going to
take 3 more years at $50 million a year, that means we are going to be
at $650 million for this travel system. That is unacceptable. I believe
we ought to say perform or don't perform and put it at a per-unit cost.
Why is it that only 370,000 out of 5.6 million travel episodes were
used on this system at the end of 7 years?
We have a structural problem in contracting through the Defense
Department, as well as many other departments in our Government. What
started out to be a $60 million project is now going to end up being
$650 million. It is the same issue we face with FEMA today in terms of
being efficient.
I ask my colleagues to think about how this will still continue if we
do it on a per-travel basis. First, it will increase the stimulus to
get the job done and completed because there will be more revenue, the
more people who use it. Two, it will limit the total amount of money
the taxpayers are going to end up having to pay for this system. Three,
it will send a message to the contract officers at the Pentagon that
creep in terms of contracting is not acceptable. There are some real
questions on whether this process violated the contracting laws at the
Pentagon. I assure my fellow Senators, through the Federal Financial
Oversight Committee, if this continues, we are going to have some
hearings to look at the issue of violation of the contracting laws at
the Pentagon. We should not have to do that.
Let's limit the exposure of the American people to the cost. I am not
upset at the contractor who is doing this. The problem is, it is a big
task, but it has cost way too much. Let's provide some stimulus to
finish the job and make sure the job is done well rather than continue
to throw money at it.
With that, I yield the floor at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I very much respect the Senator from
Oklahoma. He is a man who is a watchdog on the taxpayers' money, and so
am I. I know he is very conversant on a variety of issues. It is one of
those occasions I must rise in opposition to the Senator's amendment.
Congress, several years ago, authorized the Defense Travel System
with the aim of saving taxpayers' dollars, and that makes a great deal
of sense to make sure that travel administration by the Department of
Defense has greater scrutiny. In fact, as I understand it, they have
found by doing it this way--and it is only being field tested; it is
not fully implemented--those who are traveling at first-class and
tickets being paid for where travel wasn't used. This system is
actually helping save the taxpayers money and also identifying when
Government workers are flying at a higher cost than they ought to.
I am told that it is now used at a little bit more than half of the
Department of Defense 11,000 sites by nearly 700,000 uniformed and
civilian personnel. It appears, from what I have looked at, that DTS
has not only met but exceeded its original objectives. It is not fully
put in place. It is being field tested. As a practical matter, we would
like another year or so to see it fully implemented. I am told that it
has handled more than a million transactions, and it is well on its way
to saving the projected $56 million a year for the American taxpayers.
As to efficiency and savings, any GSA solution will strip away what
are planned savings and actually increase operations costs. This is the
information I have been trying to gather on this since Senator Coburn
offered the amendment. It would actually increase operation costs from
$40 to $60 million annually. Senator Warner used the figure of $65
million. Regardless, there would be an added cost.
One thing the Senator from Oklahoma mentioned is that the Department
of Defense does not actually own this software system and that what the
Department of Defense, though, has done is it has appropriate license
rights to the DTS software system in accordance with Federal
acquisition regulations. While there are these allegations from outside
parties that criticize the DTS program on the basis that the Government
failed to obtain title to the DTS software, what is ignored is that the
Federal acquisitions regulations provide that in the vast majority of
Federal contracts, the Government does not take title, but instead it
is given a license to the software. And the Department of Defense has
secured appropriate license rights to all the developed software and
third-party software products used by DTS.
The Senator from Oklahoma stated that this contract may violate the
very laws that were put on the books to try to maintain competition in
contracting. I don't know whether it was an assertion or a conclusion.
I respectfully disagree. The legality of the restructuring of the DTS
contract has been challenged in court. From what our research has
shown, no court has found that the entire restructured contract was
illegal. It simply stated no part of the contract, as currently
configured, has been found by any court to be illegal. Maybe it will be
in the future, and we will see.
Mr. COBURN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. ALLEN. Let me finish and then the Senator can respond. I say to
my
[[Page S11184]]
friend from Oklahoma, I do have a great deal of respect for him. He is
truly a steward of the taxpayers' money. I pride myself, also, in being
a good steward of the taxpayers' dollars. I know there have been
hearings on this DTS program. We need to continue to examine this issue
and, in fact, a lot of others. To cut funding right now for this
program would be a hasty action and, from all the information I have
been able to glean, would actually increase the cost to the taxpayers.
The Department of Defense does oppose this amendment. They called my
office a short time ago expressing this opposition. They promised to
review the GAO report as soon as possible. I do think the more prudent
approach is to, of course, commend the Senator from Oklahoma for any
kind of scrutiny. No spending should not be under the watchful eye of
us as stewards of the taxpayers' dollars. But because of a lack of
understanding on the part of the Senators on the floor and this
amendment, this should continue to be studied.
I will oppose this amendment and work, such as all of us, to study
this issue further. I hope my colleagues will oppose the amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. ALLEN. I yield to the Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. I underestimated the amount of time needed. Senator
Levin wishes to speak. I ask unanimous consent that the vote take place
at 12:15 p.m. and that the additional time be divided between the
Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, and the Senator from Michigan, Mr.
Levin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. ALLEN. I yield the floor.
Mr. COBURN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. ALLEN. Yes, I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. I don't have any problems in putting a lid on this
contract, but let's have a little history. The reason the judge could
not find a violation in the Competition in Contracting Act was because
the Pentagon did not own the software. By design, they cannot have it
if they do not own it.
It was interesting, before the hearing last week, the contractor
offered to give the property rights to the Pentagon. In the testimony
last week, it was noted that DTS performs less effectively than almost
every other civilian e-travel system.
We are 7 years into it. We are going to spend another $150 million.
Also, in the history of the contract, this is another no-bid contract
that I know Senator Levin is very interested in. It is a cost plus--
$43.7 million in the first year, that was not in the contract, and we
went on and paid it for anyway.
Based on what is happening with the contracting and how we are
getting around the Competition in Contracting Act, I believe we need
some real sunshine on this.
The fact is, we are going to spend another $150 million. If the
Defense Department would guarantee me that we are not going to spend
more than another $100 million to get a travel system that we own, not
licensed, but we own, since we are going to pay $650 million for
something that should have cost $150 million, then I would be happy to
withdraw this amendment. But you cannot get an assurance out of the
Pentagon what the cost is going to be because there is not any end in
sight in the cost.
We don't own it. They have offered to because of that, but once the
Pentagon owns the contract and the rights to this, then the Competition
in Contracting Act goes into force, and then there is a basis for the
violation.
So the reason the judge ruled the way he ruled was because we did not
have ownership to the property. So, therefore, there was no basis for
the claim. I understand that, but that is the reason that was not given
to the Pentagon, that the Competition in Contracting Act could not be
enforced.
I am happy to drop this issue if somebody will stand up and say there
is a limit to how much we are going to spend. We have already spent
four times what the public should have spent on any system. No private
business would have spent this amount of money for this system. Nobody
would have.
We ought to look at it very hard. Give me the assurance that there is
an end to this and that it is more efficient than anything we could
have done otherwise, and I will drop my look at it.
I believe the way to stimulate responsibility in this contract is to
put it on a per-issue basis now to make it work.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I reclaim my time and then I will yield. I
also share with my colleagues that the judge who reviewed this case did
not find a violation, for whatever technical reasons Senator Coburn may
say, but the adjudication was there is no violation. The judge also
said that to start over would be a mistake.
I yield the floor.
Mr. COBURN. Will the Senator yield for one comment?
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The opposition has 6 minutes. The Senator from
Oklahoma has 3 minutes 21 seconds.
Mr. COBURN. I will be happy to claim my time.
Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator is seeking recognition on his time, I have
no objection.
Mr. COBURN. I will be happy to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, are we going to have a judge decide on the
basis of economics whether we start over? What does that have to do
with adjudication? He is making an economic decision for us. That is
our job. That is not the judge's job. It doesn't matter whether he says
it will be more expensive; that is not his role. That is part of our
problem in the judiciary today. That is not his role. That is our role.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment of
the Senator from Oklahoma. I do so with some reluctance, actually,
because I have great admiration for the Senator from Oklahoma and his
efforts to curtail waste in the Government. I have joined him on a
number of those efforts. As a matter of fact, I very much admire his
efforts and the efforts of the subcommittee he chairs to go after
waste. I think he is going too far in this particular case, and he is
going after an effort to try to integrate the thousands--literally
thousands--of financial management systems in the Department of
Defense.
We had a chart a few years back with a box for each financial
management system in the Department of Defense, perhaps half the size
of the curtain behind the Presiding Officer. There were thousands of
boxes on that chart. We told the Department of Defense: You have to get
your house in order; you have to get some financial management in the
Department of Defense so that we can tell whether your expenditures--so
that you can tell and then we, as oversight people, can tell--are those
expenditures authorized; do your managers know how much you are
spending on what; is the payment automatic when these expenditures are
made?
For instance, for travel, when a ticket is purchased, is that ticket
paid for automatically the way it should be by a computer if it is
authorized or is there going to have to be someone, as the status quo
provides, cutting a check for the travel? That costs money. It may not
appear in the cost of the ticket of the one transaction that may be the
``cheapest'' transaction, according to some system, but there is a cost
to pay for that transaction.
We want the payment to be automatic when the transaction is
authorized. We want the ability of managers to know what is being
spent, is the travel authorized, can you go back and track the travel
automatically?
Now we have thousands of systems out there, with thousands of
managers, not integrated into a system, where the kind of management
that is so essential in the Pentagon can occur.
That is the problem with the amendment. It goes back to a focus on
individual transactions to purchase tickets rather than to make a
system to buy the travel part of an integrated management system.
Look, we put a lot of pressure on the Pentagon. We have put a huge
amount of pressure on it to come up with some
[[Page S11185]]
financial management capability. They have been a failure at it. Now
they are trying to do it--they have not succeeded, by the way. This
system has plenty of bugs in it. As the Senator from Oklahoma properly
points out, there are bugs in this system. But we don't kill the effort
to try to get integrated financial management so there is some
accountability for the funds that are spent by the Pentagon.
We do not want to go back to ground zero. We want to try to make this
work. And the problem with this amendment is that it goes too far
because it says:
None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be obligated
or expended for further development, deployment, or operation
of any web-based, end-to-end travel management system, or
services under any contract for such travel services that
provides for payment by the Department of Defense to the
service provider--
Except for a fixed-fee transaction payment.
That puts us back to millions of individual transactions which are
unaccountable and for which we cannot have proper oversight. That is
the problem.
I admire the Senator's goal in trying to come up with a system which
is better than the one we are now proceeding to acquire. We are going
to work out the bugs, hopefully, in that system. But I disagree to
going back to ground zero because we have to get some integrated
financial management at the Pentagon. That is the purpose of this DTS
system.
It has not yet been achieved. I agree with the Senator from Oklahoma,
it has not been achieved, but I don't think we ought to blow up the
effort and go back to ground zero.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan for his
comments. This does not go back to ground zero. This leaves the DTS
system intact. What it says is we are going to pay a fee for every
transaction you do. We have spent $500 million on this and, as the
Senator from Virginia said, we are up to $600,000 out of the 3.6
million transactions.
I can think of no better incentive to have the bugs worked out of it
by the contractor than to get more of the 3.6 million transactions. It
does not eliminate this. It does not take us back to ground zero. It
leaves DTS intact. It says the way we are going to pay for it, from now
on, is on a per-transaction basis, rather than a fixed amount or $50
million plus cost that is going to run, which we see now is at least 3
years, at least another $150 million.
We have 3.6 million transactions per year that are going to go
through there. It does not do what the Senator claims. It does not
eliminate DTS. It does not cause any change in the implementation of
the program, other than pay for it on a per-transaction basis. The
taxpayers ought to be willing to say: Hey, if it is going to work, it
is going to work, and we will pay for it as it works now. We have spent
half a billion dollars.
I reserve my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute 22 seconds remaining.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, again, I thank my friend from Oklahoma.
This is a prohibition on spending any additional money to operate any
Web-based, end-to-end management system. That is what is in the
language. It says you cannot spend any more money. We can't get the
bugs out, which is what we should do if you can't spend any more money
to improve this system.
The Senator from Oklahoma goes back to an individual transaction
system which does not provide the ability to determine whether travel
is authorized, does not permit the people who are responsible to pay
for the travel to know whether it is authorized and to pay for it by
computer automatically. We have millions of transactions that are going
to have to be paid for individually instead of part of the end-to-end
system.
So if the Senator had allowed for the correction of this system to
work out the bugs, that would be one thing. But it does not. This says
you cannot spend any more money on a Web-based system, and that is the
mistake of this amendment. That is why it goes too far, although it is
well intended.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, will my colleague from Michigan yield
time? I wish to speak on this issue in support of it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has no more time to yield. The
Senator from Oklahoma has 1 minute 20 seconds.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I will speak for a short time and then
give my colleague from Minnesota a chance to finish, even though he
opposes my amendment.
The Pentagon has the ability to set that transaction fee on a per
basis. They will be able to still fund it. If there ends up being a
million people this next year and they charge $30 per fund, they will
get $30 million out of it.
The point is, the Pentagon has the flexibility to do it that way.
I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I support the intent of what my colleague
from Oklahoma wants to do. He wants to clean up this system. We had a
hearing on this issue last week. The Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations had a hearing on this issue, and we have questions out
to the DOD, out to the GAO, and we have a commitment from the Under
Secretary of Defense to work with us.
I have said if we cannot get the right answers we should pull the
plug, but now is not the time to pull the plug. We do oversight for a
reason. We are in the process of oversight. Let us get answers to the
questions, but clearly then we want to have the right kind of system.
So I agree with the intent of what my colleague is trying to
accomplish, but this is not the way to do it or the time to do it. Let
us finish our investigative work. Let us get the answers, and then we
can bring this issue up at another time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. On behalf of Senator Inouye and myself, I move to table
the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma and ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the
Senator from Colorado (Mr. Allard), and the Senator from Utah (Mr.
Hatch).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine)
was necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 65, nays 32, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 253 Leg.]
YEAS--65
Akaka
Alexander
Allen
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Bunning
Burns
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Frist
Hagel
Harkin
Hutchison
Inouye
Isakson
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Shelby
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Talent
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--32
Bayh
Bingaman
Boxer
Brownback
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Coburn
Dayton
DeMint
Dodd
Dole
Durbin
Feingold
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Inhofe
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Lincoln
McCain
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Sessions
Snowe
Stabenow
Sununu
Thomas
Thune
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Allard
Corzine
Hatch
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1896
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we now call
up the Dayton amendment, No. 1896.
[[Page S11186]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Dayton] proposes an
amendment numbered 1896.
Mr. STEVENS. 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, with an offset, an additional $120,000,000
for Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide, for certain child and
family assistance benefits for members of the Armed Forces)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. (a) Additional Amount for Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-Wide.--The amount appropriated by title
II under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-
Wide'' is hereby increased by $120,000,000.
(b) Availability for Child and Family Assistance
Benefits.--Of the amount appropriated by title II under the
heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', as
increased by subsection (a), $120,000,000 may be available as
follows:
(1) $100,000,000 may be available for childcare services
for families of members of the Armed Forces.
(2) $20,000,000 may be available for family assistance
centers that primarily serve members of the Armed Forces and
their families.
(c) Offset.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the amount
appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act for the
Missile Defense Agency is hereby reduced by $120,000,000.
(2) Limitation.--The reduction in paragraph (1) shall not
be derived from amounts appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act for the Missile Defense Agency and
available for missile defense programs and activities of the
Army.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time
between 2 p.m. and 2:15 be equally divided between the sponsor and the
managers of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. And that there be no second-degree amendments but any
motion in relation to this amendment be in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendments Nos. 1929, 2000, and 1924, En Bloc
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have a managers' package. I send it to
the desk. In this package is an amendment for Senator Levin, No. 1929,
for the medium tactical vehicle modifications; Senator Levin, No. 2000,
pertaining to Indian tribes; and, Senator Kennedy, No. 1924, for humvee
integrated starters.
I ask unanimous consent that these three amendments be considered en
bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask for consideration of those amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendments en bloc.
The amendments were agreed to en bloc, as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 1929
(Purpose: To make available $5,000,000 from Research, Development,
Test, and Evaluation, Army, for Medium Tactical Vehicle Modifications)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. Of the amount appropriated by title IV under the
heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation,
Army'', up to $5,000,000 may be used for Medium Tactical
Vehicle Modifications.
AMENDMENT NO. 2000
(Purpose: To provide that the governments of Indian tribes be treated
as State and local governments for purposes of the disposition of real
property recommended for closure in the report to the President from
the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission, July 1993)
On page 220, after line 25, insert the following:
Sec. 8116. Section 8013 of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 1994 (Public Law 103-139; 107 Stat. 1440)
is amended by striking ``the report to the President from the
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission, July 1991''
and inserting ``the reports to the President from the Defense
Base Closure and Realignment Commission, July 1991 and July
1993''.
AMENDMENT NO. 1924
(Purpose: To make available $1,000,000 from Research, Development,
Test, and Evaluation, Army, for Integrated Starter/Alternator for Up-
Armored High Mobility Multi-Wheeled Vehicles)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. Of the amount appropriated by title IV under the
heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation,
Army'', up to $1,000,000 may be used for Integrated Starter/
Alternator for Up-Armored High Mobility Multi-Wheeled
Vehicles.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we are going to try to work through this
bill. The bill is open to debate. I will be pleased to take up any
other amendments Senators might bring before us.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill 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.
____________________