[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 79 (Wednesday, May 14, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4130-S4152]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE COOPERATION ACT OF 2007
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 980, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 980) to provide collective bargaining rights
for public safety officers employed by States or their
political subdivisions.
Pending:
Reid (for Gregg-Kennedy) amendment No. 4751, in the nature
of a substitute.
Hatch amendment No. 4755 (to amendment No. 4751), to
provide for a public safety officer bill of rights.
Alexander amendment No. 4760 (to amendment No. 4751), to
guarantee public safety and local control of taxes and
spending.
Leahy amendment No. 4759 (to amendment No. 4751), to
reauthorize the bulletproof vest partnership grant and
provide a waiver for hardship for the matching grant program
for law enforcement armor vests.
Corker amendment No. 4761 (to amendment No. 4751), to
permit States to pass laws to exempt such States from the
provisions of this act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see my friend and colleague, Senator
Enzi. I will now make a comment about the pending legislation. I
thought we did have some good discussion and debate on yesterday. A
number of important issues were raised. I will try this morning at
least to respond to some of those matters to clear up what I think are
some questions we had. Obviously, we are interested in moving this
process forward, considering amendments, and getting to the Senate's
business.
Once again, I will mention two organizations that support our Public
Safety Employee Cooperation Act: the International Association of
Firefighters and the Union of Police Associations. We pointed out this
week is set aside in our Nation, and has been set aside since 1962, to
give special honor to our men and women in the police organizations who
have lost their lives in the line of duty. It is a very special, solemn
ceremony in which they participate. We are mindful of their service
every day but especially this week. We are grateful for their strong
support for this legislation. They have studied it, analyzed it, looked
into it, and support it.
The National Association of Police Organizations and a great many
other organizations have supported this legislation--our first
responders. These are the organizations that speak for firefighters,
speak for police officers, speak for the first responders.
Yesterday we had a good debate about the bill. I think we are off to
a good start. I would like to take some time today to set the record
straight as to what the bill does do and what the bill does not do.
Fundamentally, this bill is about choice, who should make the choice
whether public safety workers get a union--the Federal Government,
State government, or the workers themselves.
Right now we have a system where the Government makes the choice--26
States give workers the ability to form a union if they want one; 24
States deny workers that option. These 24 State governments think they
know better than the workers themselves what is best.
I disagree. Our public safety officers are on the front lines every
day fighting fires, stopping crimes, saving lives. They know best how
to protect the public. They know best how to keep safe on the job. They
know best whether they need a union to represent their interests.
The Cooperation Act gives this choice to the workers. It says the
States have to provide a path that workers can use if they decide they
want a union. If the workers do not want a union, fine, they do not
have to walk down that path. But the State has to make it available and
let the workers choose, just as it is with the right to vote.
Individuals do not have to vote, but they have the right to vote. This
is the State making that judgment. We recognize that as a fundamental
right there and here.
Under current law, States make the judgment decision. With the
Alexander amendment it will allow the States to make the judgment and
decision. Under the Corker amendment, that is it. Under our Cooperation
Act it is the workers themselves who make the judgment--do they want
it, don't they want it--and we abide by the outcome. That is a basic,
fundamental difference.
It is not going to be hard for the States to build this path. All
they have to do is provide for four core rights: No. 1, the right to
form and join a union; No. 2, the right to sit down and
[[Page S4131]]
talk at the table; No. 3, the right to sign a contract if both parties
agree; and, No. 4, the right to go to a neutral third party when they
have disputes.
They can make the judgment whether they want arbitration, whether
they want mediation, whether they want fact finding. There are no
requirements. They can make those judgments; they can make those
decisions. They make the judgments.
Apart from these four things, all other details of the collective
bargaining system are left up to the States. States have the
flexibility to decide whether to exempt small communities. They decide
how workers can select a union--through card check, elections, or both.
Do we understand? The States make those judgments and decisions.
States can decide how workers and employers should resolve disputes--
through arbitration, mediation, fact finding, or some other mechanism.
If a State decides not to pass a law providing a framework for
bargaining, or if the State law does not provide for the four core
rights, the Federal labor relations authority will step in to ensure
that workers have these rights. But that is only if the State refuses
to act.
We heard a good deal of discussion about the role of this authority
and how we do not understand what this is all about and how this is
going to change federalism. It is very simple what this legislation
does do and what it does not permit. Our first responders sacrifice so
much for us each day, the least we owe them is the ability to choose
for themselves whether they want a union. We owe them at least that
much dignity and respect, and that is what the Cooperation Act
provides.
I hope this explanation will ease the minds of many of my colleagues.
I think there have been a lot of misconceptions about this bill
floating around. I hope this explanation can alleviate some of those
concerns. We heard a lot of talk yesterday about this bill imposing
Washington's will on the States. Of course that is not true. I happen
to think that unions are good for workers, but nothing in this bill
imposes my opinion or the opinion of my colleagues on public safety
officers. Under this bill, Congress does not make the decision whether
public safety officers have a union. Instead, firefighters, police
officers, have the choice. That is where the decision will be made.
Several amendments were filed yesterday that would give the State and
local governments, the employers, the opportunity to opt out of the
requirements of this bill. But these opt-out provisions actually block
the rights of the first responders. They would allow the State and
local governments to cut off public safety officers' rights. We should
let police and firefighters decide whether they want to exercise their
rights to have a union. That is what this bill would do.
Senator Alexander and Senator Enzi said people in their States are
happy without unions. If that is true, then it is likely nothing will
change. If those public safety officers believe their voices are being
heard and their concerns are being addressed, then they will choose not
to form unions. Nothing in this bill forces them to make a different
choice.
Senator Alexander and Senator Enzi should put their assertions to the
test and pass this legislation. If they are right, nothing will change.
But if they are wrong, public safety officers in Tennessee and Wyoming
will vote for unions and get a voice in the workplace.
We also heard that Washington was imposing a one-size-fits-all
federal system on the States. This is another misconception. At every
turn in drafting this legislation, Senator Gregg and I went out of our
way to give States the flexibility to adopt a collective bargaining law
that works for them. Under this bill, Congress will not tell Tennessee
or Wyoming or any other State how to implement the law. States can
choose how to comply.
As I mentioned, States only have to provide the most basic rights.
Other than those basic rights, States have the flexibility to adopt the
system that works best for them.
I would note that several of the amendments filed yesterday would
take these basic choices away from the States and mandate a Federal
rule on issues such as right to work or card check. That is not what
this bill should be about. The flexibility for States is important as
long as the core rights are there.
States also have the flexibility to completely control costs under
this bill. This control means there is no risk of unfunded mandates. My
colleagues across the aisle love to talk about charges of unfunded
mandates, but it simply does not fit.
This bill comes with no--I repeat no--price tag. Nothing in this bill
tells the State and local governments to spend any money. Nothing says
they have to raise wages. Nothing says they have to improve benefits or
shift money from local priorities into public safety. Governments are
free to write their own contracts. At the bargaining table, State and
local governments are free to offer bargaining proposals that are
consistent with their local fiscal needs. They cannot be forced to
agree to any terms they do not want or cannot afford.
In addition to being able to protect their interests at the
bargaining table, State and local governments can also safeguard their
financial interests through the legislative process. The bill
explicitly allows State and local legislative bodies to retain the
right to approve or disapprove funding for a contract by requiring an
agreement be presented to a legislative body as part of the process for
approving such contract or memorandum of understanding.
That simply means elected Representatives have the final say on
spending. Do we understand that? The bill explicitly allows the State
and local legislative bodies to retain the right to approve or
disapprove funding for a contract by requiring an agreement ``be
presented to a legislative body as part of the process for approving
such contract or memoranda of understanding.'' Elected Representatives
have the final say on spending.
Remember also that under this bill, public safety officers have no
right to strike and no requirement of binding arbitration. That means
no one can force a contract on a State and local government under this
bill.
The other side's additional argument that there will be costs
associated with just implementing any new State law is a red herring.
The costs will be minimal. All State and local governments already have
human resource departments in place. In addition, collective bargaining
often creates new efficiencies that actually save money. In Miami, FL,
the local firefighter union worked with the community to reconfigure
EMS services and ended up saving taxpayers a great deal of money.
On top of all these safeguards for State and local governments, we
have adopted an additional safeguard for the States' smallest
communities. In addition to the protections I have just outlined, the
bill allows State governments to exempt these smaller communities if
they want. If a town has fewer than 5,000 residents or employs fewer
than 25 workers, the State can say: Our law does not apply to you.
You can see this bill is a reasonable way to extend the choice of
whether to have a union for our Nation's public safety officers. We
have taken extensive steps to protect State and local flexibility to
ensure they will not be burdened by these procedures.
A final argument that we have heard about States rights yesterday was
that this bill violates States rights under the Constitution. This
argument is simply false. The bill has been carefully crafted to comply
with the current Supreme Court cases on the ability of Congress to
regulate State governments. Throughout our history, our Federal
Government has set core labor standards, such as minimum wage and
overtime rules, that apply also to State workers. Do we understand
that? Minimum wage, overtime apply to State workers. They apply to them
in Massachusetts. They apply in Tennessee.
Bargaining rights are no different. I do not think anyone in this
Chamber would argue that the State government should not have to comply
with the basic standards prohibiting them from discriminating against
workers based on race or gender. The same is true for collective
bargaining rights. Bargaining rights are civil rights too.
Moreover, there is a strong Federal interest in the performance of
State and local first responders. We have an
[[Page S4132]]
increasingly Federal approach to national security. We have created a
Department of Homeland Security and appropriated $40 billion for that--
$40 billion, for homeland security.
The last time I looked at the map, all the States fell within that
criterion, in terms of being protected. In our post-
9/11 world, this national response to terrorism increasingly depends on
coordination with State and local public safety officers. It is more
appropriate than ever for the Federal Government to ensure that public
safety officers are working as efficiently and as effectively as
possible. By encouraging strong partnerships between public safety
officers and the cities and States they serve, this bill advances the
Government's interests in improving homeland security.
Finally, my colleagues have tried to scare even those States that
have good, solid collective bargaining laws into believing that their
laws are on the line. In truth, more than half of the States in the
country will not be affected by this bill.
As I described a minute ago, the bill does not require that State
laws have specific provisions, only that they provide the basic
protections I outlined. The Federal Labor Relations Authority, which
will make those determinations, is not some secret society. It is a
longstanding Federal agency staffed by dedicated career servants and
Presidential appointees who are confirmed by the Senate--not greatly
different from the National Labor Relations Board, for example.
In summary, you can see that this bill is not the aggressive
intrusion into State government that was portrayed yesterday.
In addition, I wish to address some of the other individual concerns
raised about the bill that are misleading and misplaced.
First, this bill will not encourage strikes. In fact, this bill
provides additional safeguards to prevent strikes. It specifically says
that a public safety officer may not engage in a strike, work slowdown,
or any action that will measurably disrupt the delivery of emergency
services. There is no room for interpretation. That is an ironclad ban
on any action that will impair public safety. This language
specifically says that a public safety officer may not engage in a
strike, work slowdown, or any other action that will measurably disrupt
the delivery of emergency services. More importantly, it creates a
mechanism for public safety officers and their employers to communicate
and build strong bipartisanship that enhances cooperation, decreasing
the likelihood of strikes.
It is an insult--it is an insult to public safety officers to suggest
that they will strike. It has been decades since there has been a
police or firefighters strike in this country. Police and firefighters
in most States already have the right to bargain, and there has been no
problem with strikes. These brave men and women take their duty to
serve the public very seriously, so seriously they are willing to die
for it. The suggestion that they would shirk their duty in order to
argue over a contract dishonors them and dishonors their sacrifices.
Next, I wish to underscore that this bill will not harm communities
that rely on volunteer firefighters. This legislation expressly applies
only to employees, which means volunteers are excluded. Any suggestion
that cities and towns are going to be forced to bargain with and
possibly pay their volunteer firefighters is wrong. What is more, we
included language supported by the National Volunteer Firefighter
Council to ensure that professional firefighters can continue to
volunteer in their off-duty hours. This language outlaws contract
provisions that would prohibit an employee from engaging in part-time
employment or volunteer activities during off-duty hours. That includes
part-time or volunteer firefighting. Senator Enzi says that is not
clear, but it seems pretty clear to me.
My colleagues across the aisle also attacked this bill yesterday as
hypocritical because it is inconsistent with how our Federal Government
treats its own workers. Again, this criticism is untrue and misleading.
Federal workers have bargaining rights. They also have a say in their
wages. The law allows them to petition the Government each year.
Federal law enforcement offices are an example of how well collective
bargaining rights and public safety go together. Whether Congress
should give Federal public safety officers the right to directly
bargain over wages is an issue for another day. We do not need to
resolve that question in order to do the right thing for the State and
local offices.
We also heard complaints about the process that brought us to this
point. Listening to the debate, you might think this bill was a new
idea never explored or never debated. That again is simply false. This
bill has been around for a long time. It was introduced in 1999, almost
10 years ago, by Senator DeWine, and then by Senator Gregg. It has also
had strong bipartisan support.
My colleagues across the aisle would have us go through more hearings
and debate before we act. We do not need more hearings. We have already
had a hearing in the HELP Committee. In fact, we have marked this bill
up twice, once in 2001 and once in 2003. We even voted on this bill
before in 2001. Our Nation's first responders have waited long enough
for the basic rights in this bill. We should not make them wait any
longer. They do not make us wait when we need them. We should not have
them wait any longer.
I yield the floor
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, we did have a brief time yesterday to begin
exploring the multiple flaws and deception in this legislation. I
believe it would be useful today to begin by touching on a few of those
flaws.
I have taken the suggestion of my colleague and friend from
Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, and looked very carefully at the Record
of yesterday's proceedings, and here are a few things worth noting.
In response to my remarks and those of Senator Alexander, we were
repeatedly told yesterday that it was perfectly all right to federalize
the programs of State and local labor relations of States like mine and
Senator Alexander's and at least 20 others to, in effect, tell those
States that the Democratic decisions of their sovereign governments and
their citizens simply did not count, that the Federal Government knows
best, that the Federal Government will tell those States what their law
must be and how they must conduct their labor relations with their own
employees. In essence, the citizens and legislators of a near majority
of States are being told by the proponents of this bill that they know
better what will work for those States.
As Senator Alexander put it so well yesterday, this bill is really
about States like Massachusetts or New Jersey telling States like mine
or his, and at least 20 others, how best to deal with their employees
and how to fashion their own State laws in the total absence of any
need to do so. Now, I completely reject that. However, for those who
support it, they owe it to themselves to at least be consistent in
their approach. They are not. While they would deny a near majority of
States the right to determine what they believe to be the best approach
to public sector labor relations within their States, they staunchly
defend the right of a small minority of States to deny public employees
the most fundamental democratic rights in the workplace.
Five States--New York, New Jersey, Illinois, New Hampshire, and
Massachusetts--all home to the sponsors of this bill, have card check
laws for their public workers. Those States have decided this is the
way they intend to conduct the labor relations among their employees. I
respectfully disagree. I believe that approach to be antidemocratic,
and it is certainly contrary to the Federal labor policy which
preserves for workers in the private sector the right to a democratic
secret ballot in deciding the question of unionization.
However, we are told by the proponents of this bill that this
fundamental workplace issue is a matter of State choice, while at the
same time being told that any State's choice to elect a different
system of labor law than that imposed by H.R. 980 is not. Denying
workers a secret ballot election on unionization is somehow a matter of
local choice, but deciding to utilize and meet and confer on a system
of labor management relations or to decide the issue by local option is
not.
[[Page S4133]]
The inconsistency and hypocrisy of that position is nothing short of
stunning. It is utterly indefensible.
At least that issue is addressed by Senator Hatch's amendments. That
amendment will at least end that hypocrisy by expressly overturning
antidemocratic card check laws for public sector employees in New York,
New Jersey, New Hampshire, Illinois, and Massachusetts. While we should
not impose Federal law on States at all, if we ought to do it, we ought
to do it consistently.
Now, lastly, I want to note that yesterday my colleague and great
friend from Massachusetts indicated that if the bill were half as bad--
he reiterated it again today--half as bad as I had indicated in my
remarks, he would be against it as well. I take my friend at his word
but do not ask that he take me at mine.
Late yesterday, the leaders received a letter from Michael Bloomberg,
the mayor of New York, regarding H.R. 980.
I wish to remind everyone that New York has a full collective
bargaining statute covering public safety officers. I also wish to
remind everyone that we are told by all of the proponents of this bill
that because of this, New York would not be affected by this law.
Here is what Mayor Bloomberg had to say in his letter to Leaders Reid
and McConnell:
I am writing to express my serious concerns about
legislation before the Senate which would alter the current
state of collective bargaining between the City of New York
and a number of its unions. The legislation has the potential
to harm both New York City and New York State labor
relations.
As you are aware, the Public Safety Employer-Employee
Cooperation Act of 2007 is a bill that would significantly
expand the jurisdiction of the Federal Labor Relations
Authority, FLRA, into the labor relations between State and
local governments and their public safety officers.
Though the bill may be well intentioned, its fundamental
problem from the point of view of New York is that it does
not clearly distinguish States like New York that have long
provided collective bargaining rights to their employees from
States that have not.
Under the bill, States with long histories of collective
bargaining face the risk of having their labor relations with
public safety officers Federalized to the detriment of long-
established public policies.
For over 40 years, the New York City Collective Bargaining
Law and the New York State Public Employees Fair Employment
Act, also referred to as the Taylor Act, have provided a
legal framework for public sector collective bargaining in
the City of New York. There has been extensive administrative
and judicial review of virtually every aspect of this legal
framework. The bill has the potential to undermine this long-
established framework.
One problem is the bill's treatment of the ability of
public safety employees to strike. The New York State Taylor
Law currently contains a clear and unequivocal prohibition on
all strikes by public sector employees and explicit
penalties, such as substantial fines against the individual
members for violations of the no-strike provision.
The language in the proposed language before the Senate is
less clear. The City is very concerned that section 6 of this
bill can be read to prohibit only a strike that would
measurably disrupt the delivery of emergency services.
This language, while it may not be intended to limit the
prohibition in this way, is an invitation to
misinterpretation and litigation. In addition, the same
section could encourage employees to refuse to carry out
services that many believe are not required under the
mandatory terms and conditions of employment in situations
where the public safety might be immediately affected by such
a refusal.
The mayor of New York goes on to say:
Another serious problem with the bill is that it gives FLRA
the authority to decide what must be collectively bargained.
New York has longstanding legal precedent regarding what are
mandatory, permissive and prohibited subjects for collective
bargaining. Under section 4 of the bill, such long-
established legal precedent could be overturned by the FLRA.
A notable example is that disciplinary procedures for
police officers and firefighters, including due process, are
provided for in the New York City Charter and administrative
code and are prohibited subjects of bargaining. The New York
Court of Appeals confirmed as recently as 2006 that these
procedures may not be subject to bargaining, but the bill
would give the FLRA the authority to decide otherwise.
I think that is a point we made yesterday.
A decision by the police commissioner, for example, as to
whether or not discipline should be brought against a police
officer involved in a shooting incident is something for
which he remains fully accountable to the public. It is of
grave concern to the City that it could be forced to bargain
over such procedures as a result of an improper finding by
the FLRA, and such public accountability would thereby be
lost.
Even if the FLRA does not interfere with precedent that
restricts bargaining in sensitive areas like discipline, the
bill at a minimum would provide an additional means for such
precedent to be challenged repeatedly in Federal court,
resulting in an extended period of uncertainty.
In the final analysis, the bill could significantly affect
the ability of the City of New York to ensure the safety of
the public in the integrity of essential government services,
and is likely, at a minimum, to involve the city in costly
and disruptive litigation in Federal court.
Any remedy of these concerns should be achieved in
statutory language, not merely in legislative history. Given
the serious concerns the proposed bill raises for the City of
New York, I oppose the bill in its current form.
Sincerely, Michael R. Bloomberg, Mayor.
As I showed yesterday, there are more than 20 States that will have
their laws overturned by this, and 12 more whose laws could be
challenged in court.
They recognize that. Calls we are getting, letters we are having
shared with us indicate that is a concern of those out there who have
to deal with these kinds of problems and the gaps the bill language
leaves and the new authority of this Federal Labor Relations Authority
which hardly anybody has had to deal with in the past. It is not even
equipped to handle what is in the bill.
This is an ill-conceived and badly drafted bill that would not only
overturn the law in a near majority of States and disregard the
democratic will of the legislatures and people in other States, it
would plainly disrupt the law and labor relations policies of every
State. This is the price that is paid when the proponents of a bill
pander to special interests and circumvent the regular order of this
body in an attempt to advance fundamentally flawed legislation. The sad
truth is, I do not believe this bill can be fixed. I certainly do not
believe it can be fixed on the floor of the Senate. It should have been
addressed in committee, but we are left with no choice. So we will
continue today to take up the floor time of the Senate trying to fix an
irretrievably broken, totally unnecessary piece of special interest
legislation. Is it any wonder the American public holds Congress in
such low disregard?
I haven't had a chance yet to even talk specifically on the employee
bill of rights amendment and the unfunded mandate option. I will take
that opportunity at this point in time. Yesterday, the Senator from
Utah, Mr. Hatch, offered a public employee bill of rights amendment.
Many of my colleagues have spoken about the tremendous service
America's public safety employees give to the public. I believe 100
Senators believe that and want to help, in every way possible, the
public safety employees do their job. I am a little concerned that
occasionally we think that only through collective bargaining will
anybody listen to a suggestion of a public service employee. I have
never seen that happen. I am not saying it couldn't happen somewhere in
America, but if they are suggesting something for safety, I think
people will listen.
A lot of times we don't think of things for safety until after a
tragedy such as Charleston. Then we think about what could have been
done, and it is shared with the Nation. A lot of that is put into
place, not through collective bargaining, through common sense. You
want to protect the lives of the people who work for you; that is, the
people who work for the people of the United States, work for the
people in the communities. The toughest job in America is being a mayor
because you are right there with the people. They can grab you by the
shirt collar--you usually don't have any kind of security--and explain
in no uncertain terms what they are thinking. Usually, they have a
pretty good idea, not just a complaint but a complaint coupled with a
suggestion.
I know, on any given day, one of these officers could be asked to put
his or her life on the line, and they do so courageously. I agree with
my colleagues that individuals who choose these careers deserve
respect, gratitude, and special treatment. But the underlying amendment
would actually
[[Page S4134]]
result in diminishing the rights of public safety employees who are not
currently unionized. Once a workforce is unionized, even employees who
do not wish to be a part of the union will have pay deducted from their
paychecks and spent in a manner outside their control. They will have
little ability to question or alter the legal representation
established with or without their support. The Hatch amendment merely
balances that diminution of self-determination by establishing a public
bill of rights. The amendment will do three things. It guarantees the
right to vote by a secret ballot. It guarantees to limit the right of
public unions' dues collection authority to nonpolitical uses. It
guarantees that financial transparency will be there. By ensuring that
public safety employees in all States have the right to vote on whether
they unionize by secret ballot, the Hatch amendment guarantees for
public safety employees the same right private employees now have in
many States. In a democratic society, nothing is more sacred than the
right to vote. It is undeniable that nothing ensures truly free choice
more than the use of a private ballot.
The possibility of coercive or threatening behavior toward employees
who may not wish to form a union is even more concerning in the context
of public safety employees who rely on coworkers to reduce the deadly
risks they face routinely in the course of their work. The amendment
would also limit the right of public unions' dues collection authority
to nonpolitical uses. Those who choose public service often accept
lower pay than they might make in the private sector because they are
dedicated to public service. Let's not insult that choice by allowing
labor bosses to take money from paychecks and spend it on purely
political causes the employee does not support. I believe public
employees should have the same protections from fraud and abuse as
private employees. This amendment would empower public employees by
allowing them to observe how their dues are being spent and the other
financial dealings of their unions. It does this by bringing public
unions under the requirements of the Labor Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act. That is a 1959 law enacted with bipartisan support,
including then-Senator John F. Kennedy. Public employees who pay union
dues, especially those who are compelled to do so against their wishes,
are no less entitled to financial transparency and fraud protections
than private sector employees covered under the law today.
In regard to the Alexander amendment, I don't think there is any
doubt that the bill's mandates would increase costs for States and
localities that are either now unionized or do not allow bargaining to
the extent required under the law and will, therefore, be subject to
new rules. We have heard the argument that this has to be approved by a
legislative body. There is also the clause in there about what the
Federal Labor Relations Authority can do with any agreements that come
up. I assume that would be if they didn't think they were tough enough.
The costs I am concerned about go far beyond any increased pay or work
scheduling costs.
The bill's most burdensome mandate falls on small towns that will
have to assemble collective bargaining resources and capability on
short notice. We keep looking at the 5,000 figure like it is magic.
Five thousand is a very small town, and many of them already have
difficulty complying with current Federal unfunded mandates. But we are
going to impose one more on them. I don't want people to think the
small town exemption is really just set at 5,000 population. The bill
says 5,000 population or 25 employees. Towns have to hire a lot of
people to run the facilities that we take for granted. We expect to
turn on our faucet and have the water there. We expect to flush the
toilet and have it disappear. We expect to set our garbage out and have
somebody pick it up. We expect the streets to be in good condition so
they are safe. A lot of places we expect sidewalks to be there so
pedestrians don't have to be on the street. We even have in some
municipalities the provision of electricity.
Gillette, WY, was so isolated and had so few people at one time that
nobody wanted to provide electricity. So the city provided it. That has
been a growing entity with employees. But it always required quite a
few employees for doing the pole work and the meter work and the
electrical work that was necessary. So 25 employees is a pretty easy
threshold to get to in a small town. So 5,000 population or 25
employees, don't forget the 25 employees part.
The costs I am concerned about go beyond increased pay and work
scheduling costs. This bill will also require them to assemble
collective bargaining resources and capability, and on very short
notice. I think that means that since the union will be able to bring
in a negotiator, the city, the town--in Wyoming, 5,000 is a first-class
city--will have to bring in different legal and bargaining experts to
help with the negotiations, at least to train them to know how to
negotiate. That will happen on both sides.
So this requires actions such as hiring labor law experts and
establishing contracts with arbitrators, all resources that may be in
short supply since small towns all across the country will be facing
the same mandate at the same time.
As the former mayor of Gillette, I know what it is like to balance a
municipal budget. When the Federal Government imposes costly new
mandates and provides no funds to pay for them, it is frustrating for
the mayor and the council and anybody who works for the city. When I
became mayor, it was a boom town. The town had recognized the need to
have better sewer treatment facilities. We had applied to the Federal
Government. We had received a grant. Just as I took office, this new
sewer treatment facility went on line. The inspector showed up and
said: Your town has grown so much, you are violating the capacity of
your sewer system. Since we provided the money for it, we are going to
fine you.
So I needed a new sewer treatment facility. I needed several million
dollars' worth of new sewer treatment facility. So I went back to the
source. The Federal Government said: That one wasn't adequate because
of the growth you have had. They said: Sorry, you already got one
grant. You wind up at the bottom of the list now. So thousands of
communities across the United States, probably rightfully, got to be
ahead of my community. But that didn't stop the fines. Fortunately, I
got a judge who said:. Yes, we have to fine you, but we are going to
make you pay that money into a fund to build a new sewer treatment
plant. That helped a little bit because we still had the money to do
something, but we were still being put under this Federal mandate,
which is a good idea. You need to do adequate sewer treatment. That is
very important. But how do these small towns afford that? There are
thousands of them, and they are all going to be put under that law at
the same time. There aren't enough people trained to help them do this.
So the burden falls on the taxpayers. The taxpayers elect local
officials who will pursue their priorities and collect taxes at a level
to cover the cost of those priorities. That is partly right. You don't
always have the right to increase taxes. There are State limits in many
of the States that say how much a municipality can tax. So that option
may be closed down. This bill upsets the democratic order by imposing
Federal priorities on local taxpayers with no way to pay for them.
Local governments don't have ``funny money'' gimmicks like the Federal
Government. Increased costs have to result in increased taxes, such as
sales tax, property tax or decreased services. So which of those 25
employees are we going to get rid of in order to meet the costs of this
bill? You can say it is not a Federal mandate because we have some
definitions that explain what a true Federal mandate is, but I think
the towns will consider it to be a Federal mandate. So will the people
who are taxed or lose services or who are taxed and lose their jobs.
This is a choice I believe we should leave to local government. The
Alexander amendment would leave it up to them by allowing localities to
opt out of the bill's requirements, if they determine it will increase
local property taxes, compromise public safety or constitute an
unfunded mandate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The Senator from South Carolina.
[[Page S4135]]
Amendment No. 4763
(Purpose: To improve educational assistance for members of the Armed
Forces and veterans in order to enhance recruitment and retention for
the Armed Forces)
Mr. GRAHAM. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the
pending amendment?
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am sure I will not object, but I would
like to see the amendment. If the Senator will give us a moment to see
the amendment, we have not seen it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Consent is not needed.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), for himself,
Mr. Burr, and Mr. McCain, proposes an amendment numbered
4763.
Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. I send a cloture motion to the desk on a first-degree
amendment and ask unanimous consent that reading of the motion be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KENNEDY. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The cloture motion having been presented under rule XXII, the Chair
directs the clerk to read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the pending
amendment No. 4763 to H.R. 980, the Public Safety Employer-
Employee Cooperation Act of 2007.
Mitch McConnell, Michael B. Enzi, Johnny Isakson, David
Vitter, Jim DeMint, Robert F. Bennett, Pat Roberts,
John Ensign, Thad Cochran, Roger F. Wicker, Richard
Burr, Larry E. Craig, Lindsey Graham, Saxby Chambliss,
Mel Martinez, Kay Bailey Hutchison.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
Amendment No. 4764 to Amendment No. 4763
(Purpose: To improve educational assistance for members of the Armed
Forces and veterans in order to enhance recruitment and retention for
the Armed Forces)
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an
amendment numbered 4764 to amendment No. 4763.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
Mr. KENNEDY. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The clerk will continue.
The legislative clerk continued with the reading of the amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I thought things were too good to be true,
that we would have a debate on a bipartisan bill. There are a lot of
things we could do to bring the Presidential politics into what is
going on here on the floor. I think this is untoward.
This is a bill that has been worked on for a long time. Senator
Kennedy and Senator Gregg have worked in good faith to bring this up to
help firemen and police officers. I had a group of police officers in
my office today. They were so excited about this bill because we are
doing something to help them.
We have been through this before. I told Mike Enzi last Friday,
through staff, that I would not fill the tree on this. I wanted to see
if we could work in good faith for once without the Republicans playing
their petty politics. But, obviously, we cannot do that.
Now, is it any wonder--I ask: Is it any wonder--that the Republicans
have lost three special elections for House seats? It is no wonder. The
American people understand what this Republican-led Congress has done,
led by this man in the White House.
Now, is it any wonder that in a poll yesterday in the Washington
Post, the Democrats have a 21-percent lead on the Republicans on being
better able to handle the problems of this country? It is no wonder
because this is what we have. They are not serious about anything.
We have had 71 filibusters that have been filed this Congress we have
tried to break--we have had to break them--71 filibusters.
So I tell my friend, Chairman Kennedy, and Ranking Member Enzi, it is
obvious we cannot complete this legislation. It is obvious that games
are being played.
Now, can you imagine on this bill dealing with people who are first
responders--on 9/11, who were the people rushing into that building to
die? Firefighters and police officers. They have asked for some help
from us. For example, in Nevada, we have a situation where the State
legislature said local law enforcement officers can bargain
collectively. But isn't it interesting, the State cannot. Highway
patrol officers cannot, those people who are capital policemen in
Nevada cannot.
That is what this legislation would do. It would direct attention to
some of the problems law enforcement has in this country, and we are
not going to be able to do it because we are working now and are going
to have to vote on whether there should be a holiday on gas prices. I
talked to a woman in Pahrump, NV, yesterday, 50 miles out of Las Vegas.
She moved to Pahrump because it would be cheaper to live. She works in
Las Vegas. Well, that was a bad bet she made because she has a diesel
vehicle. Yesterday, it cost almost $130 to fill it with diesel fuel,
and she has to fill it once a week.
So we have a situation here where now we are going to start debating
the energy policies of this country. We are happy to enter into that
debate because we know the energy policy in this country has been set
by Dick Cheney. He met with oil companies. It was all secret. They
protected themselves, even through the Supreme Court, that we would not
know whom they met with and what they met with. But it is obvious the
policies they came up with have been a real big boon to the energy
companies, making more money than any companies in the history of the
world.
So if my Republican colleagues want to debate energy, we are happy to
do it. What we wanted to work on is something to help police and fire.
I am very disappointed. We on this side wanted to finish this
legislation. But we have a cloture motion filed on the McCain proposal,
and I am forced to acknowledge that probably he is trying to do
anything he can. He is a flawed candidate, and he is wrong on the war,
and he is wrong on the economy. But it is too bad he is still
interfering with what we are trying to do here to start doing some
serious legislating, ``he,'' meaning John McCain.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, before the leader departs the floor, I
wish to thank him again for his strong support for this legislation
that is so important to our first responders, to our firefighters, and
our police officers in this country.
We have seen this parliamentary gimmick that has taken place offered
by the Republican leadership that is a slap in the face to every
firefighter and police officer and first responder in the country.
We have bipartisan support for this legislation. We have four
amendments that are now pending. We had some understanding that we
would have an opportunity to address those amendments during the course
of the day. They are all related to this legislation. But oh, no--oh,
no--the games are going to be played, and we are saying to the
firefighters of this Nation and to the police officers of this Nation
and the first responders of this Nation: Your interests, the safety and
security of our communities across this Nation,
[[Page S4136]]
should be put aside in favor of some political gimmick by the
Republican leader in the Senate.
That is what this is about. Make no mistake about it. Every
firefighter ought to understand that. We are here now at noontime,
ready to do the public's business, ready to take a vote on these
issues, but oh, no, the Republican side says: No, you can't do it. You
can't do it.
Look, the underlying position the Republicans are talking about is
help for our GI bill. Senator Webb has his proposal. I am all in
support of what Senator Webb is doing. Why not have that done after
this bill is over? Why not have it done after then? Why didn't the
Republican leader come on up and speak to the Democratic leader and
propose: Let's do that at the end of the week. Do it Friday, Saturday,
Sunday, and Monday. Maybe Senator McCain will come back for it; maybe
he won't. Do it after we finish this bill. But, no, we are going to
insult--and this is an insult, make no mistake about it. I have been
around here long enough to know when the insults are being played, and
this is it. This is saying: Your interests are not as important as a
political hit. That is what is happening. That is what is happening.
Who are these individuals? Forty billion dollars we spend on homeland
security. Forty billion we are spending on homeland security. Who are
the people who implement homeland security? They are our firefighters,
our police officers, and first responders in all 50 States. They
believe they have ways of doing it better than it is being done at the
present time. I do too. So do Democrats and so do a few Republicans. We
want to work through the political process to give the opportunity to
have that done. But oh, no--oh, no--we are not going to do that. We are
going to play games. It is Wednesday. It is noontime. We are just going
to play some more games. We did it with you guys in the Senate last
week on energy. We are going to do it here.
Listen, we are glad and willing to vote. I have been doing that for
45 years, and I am glad to do that now. But make no mistake about it
who the target is--who the target is. The Republicans are saying: We
will not take the time. We will not take the time to let the Senate
work its will in terms of the firefighters and policemen of this
country. That is outrageous. It is a gross insult to each and every one
of them. It is a slap in the face to each and every one of them. Make
no mistake about it, that is what is going on here. That is what is
going on here.
Well, we are not giving up. We are not giving up on them. Maybe the
other side wants to give up, but we are not giving up on them. We
believe their service--their service--is too important to this country,
their lives too important to this country. When are we going to be
threatened again? Too important to this country.
Maybe the leadership on the other side can tell us whether Senator
McCain approved this strategy. Maybe we can find that out. I think the
police and firefighters of the country would like to know whether
Senator McCain--we have Senator McCain's proposal here. It is difficult
to believe an effort would be made to bring this up without his
approval. I think firefighters and policemen ought to understand
whether Senator McCain supports this proposal. You cannot get away
without believing that he does and that he has been an architect. You
don't just go around and get 16 Senators. You have to go around here
and get all those. This thing has been in the cooking for a period of
time. This just did not happen, although it looks--they duck in the
cloakroom, and then they run out and do that--all that business.
This has been going on. This is a conscious act, and one will have to
assume Senator McCain is absolutely against it. I hope he is able to
talk to the firefighters and the police officers and the first
responders. Why are you interrupting this bill--this bill--that is so
essential to the security, homeland security? Why interrupt this bill
when we are in the process--at least we thought so--that we were going
to be moving ahead to get some votes on these particular measures? Why?
No, no effort at all to try and talk to the leadership, certainly not
to--I do not expect--although, for the first 20 years or so I was in
this body, people used to do that. They used to talk to people and tell
them what was going to come on up. But I do not expect that anymore.
But you would have thought: At least talk to the leadership who has
responsibility.
So I hope each and every one of the firefighters, police officers,
first responders who have been working on this legislation for years--I
wish to mention about how long they have been working on this. It was
introduced on May 12, 1999. On July 25, 2000, we had a Health Committee
hearing. On September 19, 2001, we had a committee markup and reported
it out. On November 6, 2001, we had a Senate vote, No. 323. On November
24, we had a HELP Committee markup. On February 4, 2004, it was offered
as an amendment to S. 1017. On November 13, 2007, it was offered as
amendment No. 2419.
For 8\1/2\ years this has been before the Senate--8\1/2\ years. Two
committees, one chaired by the Senator from New Hampshire, the HELP
Committee, and the other one by myself, and we supported this bill out.
We finally have a chance to debate this. We had a good debate
yesterday, and we are prepared to deal with the amendments on a matter
of vital national security for our country and for respect for those
who are our first responders who have done so much. But the answer is,
no.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, all except the 9--10 new Senators we have
remember the time that I lived on the Senate floor. For 6 years I was
here from the time we came in session until we left, with no
exceptions. I tried at that time to be as fair to the Republicans as
the Democrats. If someone asked for more time on our side, with the
Republicans not being here, they automatically got that time.
That is what took place today--I want Senator Kennedy to hear this. I
want Senator Kennedy to hear this. Here this morning I congratulated
you and the ranking member, Senator Enzi, because we were having a good
debate and we were going to be working from the idea that we would try
to improve this bill. I said specifically that Senator Enzi said he
wished he had more time to do some committee work, and he wanted to do
some work out here.
More power to him. That is what he should be able to do. I
complimented everyone for the way this bill was being handled. Do you
know the sad part about it, I say to my friends. Senator McConnell was
standing right there. We had a conversation walking out the door.
Shouldn't he have said to me: Well, maybe you shouldn't feel that way;
I am going to file cloture on the McCain amendment to get the tax
holiday on gas.
But I am so surprised. I never try to avoid a phone call from my
Republican counterpart. I always try to be available. I would say this:
I would never do to him what he did to me this morning. It is untoward.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. 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. REID. Because we had so much notice on this, I thought it was the
McCain tax holiday amendment. But, no, it is the McCain effort to
change the Jim Webb bipartisan GI bill of rights because it is too
generous. So this idea is about the same as the gas tax holiday. He
doesn't like the GI bill of rights because it is too generous. Now I am
wondering if we want to debate Iraq on this bill because we are happy
to do it. We are happy to debate an intractable civil war that is
costing the American people $5,000 a second every day of the week,
every week of the month, every month of the year, $5,000 a second. No
weekends off, no holidays, $5,000 a second of borrowed money.
Do we want to debate the Iraq war? Is that what we want to do on this
bill that was set aside to deal with firefighters, police officers, and
first responders?
Those people came to my office today, some in uniform, some in plain
clothes, because that is what they do. Some of them wear their uniform
to work every day. Some do other work so they can't wear the uniform.
They are
[[Page S4137]]
undercover. But no--I apologize to everyone. I thought we were on the
McCain tax holiday. But, no, we are now on the GI bill of rights McCain
effort because it is too generous.
The bipartisan bill of Jim Webb that he wrote himself, bipartisan in
nature, is too generous according to John McCain. We are happy to
debate that. If that is what this body needs to do is to start the
supplemental debate a week early, we can do that too.
I note the absence of a quorum.
Mr. KENNEDY. Would the Senator withhold that request?
Mr. REID. Yes.
Mr. KENNEDY. As I understand what the majority leader is saying, he
is prepared to see the Senate vote on the McCain amendment as well as
have a vote on the Webb amendment, and do it in a timely way. Is that
what I am gathering here?
Mr. REID. Yes. We are going to do it next week anyway. Do you want to
do it a week early? Fine.
Mr. KENNEDY. The majority leader has indicated they are prepared to
go for a time limit on the McCain amendment, a time limit on the Webb
amendment, and then have a vote so Members can do it here, and do it in
a prompt way. I also understand that we would be able to continue the
consideration of this matter but, as I understand, we are not getting
any cooperation from the other side.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend not only was an amendment filed, but
untoward cloture was filed at the same time on that amendment. Now,
what would happen if on every piece of legislation around here, when
you offer an amendment, a person walks in and files a cloture motion at
the same time? That is a little funny way to do it. But maybe the
Republicans love this filibustering so much--they broke the record, the
filibuster record, in 10 months. Maybe they really want to in effect
break Hank Aaron's record big in the way of filibusters. It is not
enough to break it in 10 months, they want to really break it big, so
now they are going to start filing cloture motions on their own
amendments.
So I think what we need to do is just relax a little bit. We are
going to suggest the absence of a quorum in just a second, and we will
talk a little bit to see if there is a way out of this. I hope there is
a way out of it for the benefit of the police and firefighters and
first responders of this country. They are in town this week because
there is going to be a memorial for those who were killed this year,
police officers who were killed this year in service to their counties,
their cities, and their States. They are here. Part of the reason they
are here and the reason we scheduled this at this time is because they
were going to be here.
So I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. GREGG. Will the majority leader yield for a question?
Mr. REID. I yield for a question without losing the right to the
floor.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would ask the majority leader if I might
be recognized to speak after he completes his speech and his statement
because I would like to speak.
Mr. REID. As I said, Mr. President, we are going to go into a quorum
call and huddle down here and find out if there is a way out of this.
Mr. GREGG. Will the majority leader yield for a further question?
Mr. REID. Yes.
Mr. GREGG. I think the majority leader has made his case as to the
status of the situation. But I do believe we should not shut off debate
in the sense of not allowing for those of us who would like to express
the way we see the situation to also be able to speak. That is why I
would like to have an opportunity to speak.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend, and he is my friend, we are not going
to have any more discussion on this piece of legislation until we
figure out a way to help the police and firefighters. The decision was
made by the Republican leader to debate the GI bill of rights, OK? That
is where we are now.
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. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum
call be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum
call be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. I object.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum
call be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
quorum call so that I can answer some of the questions that have been
asked on the other side.
Mr. REID. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). Objection is heard.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate the patience of all Senators. I
am going to, in a couple minutes, move to table the Graham first-degree
amendment. That vote will take place shortly. Following that, I have
asked Senators Kennedy and Enzi to sit down and see if there is a way
we can finish this important legislation. We have other things to do
this week. We have the farm bill that will be here within the hour from
the House. We have the budget conferees we have to appoint. Senator
Dorgan is pushing hard on the media cross-ownership. That is something
we need to complete this week. I want all Senators to see what they can
do to exert influence on their friends to finish this bill. I have
talked to the head of the firefighters. He is tremendously troubled
that we ran into this roadblock. The underlying bill is very important.
I would hope everyone understands that. We have all next week to do
whatever needs to be done on the supplemental appropriations bill. We
will get into a lot of discussion on the war in Iraq and what is going
to happen to returning veterans.
In the meantime, it is my understanding the matter before the Senate
is the Graham first-degree amendment. I move to table Graham amendment
No. 4763 and ask for the yeas and nays.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN, I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton)
and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necesarily absent: the Senator from
Arizona (Mr. McCain.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 42, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 127 Leg.]
YEAS--55
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Hagel
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCaskill
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
[[Page S4138]]
NAYS--42
Alexander
Allard
Barrasso
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lugar
Martinez
McConnell
Murkowski
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Stevens
Sununu
Thune
Vitter
Wicker
NOT VOTING--3
Clinton
McCain
Obama
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DURBIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WEBB. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, may we have order? The Senator is
entitled to be heard.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in a quorum call.
Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under
the quorum call be suspended.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator cannot reserve the right to
object.
Is there objection?
Mr. GREGG. Then I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the next
hour be evenly divided between the two parties for the purposes of
debate only and at the end of that time, a quorum call be in order.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I
am not going to, but I wish to explain that Members on this side of the
aisle are prepared to go forward with the amendments Senator Enzi has
been suggesting we vote on. We are having some difficulty achieving
that, but we would like to have some more votes on the underlying bill
today.
Having said that, I do not object.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I am happy
to agree to this because I have been trying to speak now for 4 or 5
hours, and the last three times I rose to speak, the majority leader
would not allow me to speak. I understood his concern and his pique
about what he perceived as to what was happening on the floor, but
independent of that, I still think I should have the right to speak.
Therefore, since I sought the floor initially and was seeking the floor
the last time this exercise took place, I would request that the
unanimous consent request be adjusted so that I be recognized first and
that I be given 5 minutes to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator so modify his request?
Mr. KENNEDY. I so modify, with the understanding that following the
Senator from New Hampshire, the Senator from Virginia be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. I just want to say in terms of the voting that we are
prepared to vote on our side on the underlying amendments, but we were
notified by the other side that we would not be permitted to vote.
There was objection from the Republican side to voting on a Democratic
amendment, and we insist on getting that worked out so we can move
ahead.
Hopefully, we can put aside the games and get moving on this
underlying legislation, which is so important. Madam President, I ask
unanimous consent further that after Senator Webb, the speakers be
rotated from side to side and the time, as mentioned earlier, be evenly
divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized for 5 minutes--the
Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
recognized on this side after Senator Webb.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I wanted to rise earlier to put into
context what the exercise we were involved in was about and the fact
that the issue of the Graham amendment, in my humble opinion, did not,
in any way, adversely affect the capacity to pass and proceed on the
underlying bill, which is the firefighter initiative here that I and
Senator Kennedy have brought forward.
I think there were representations from the majority leader that the
Graham amendment was some sort of attempt to basically sidetrack the
firefighter bill. It was not that at all. It was simply the Senate
doing its natural business, which is to amend bills on the floor of the
Senate and get votes on those amendments. The Republican leader, in his
absolute right, set the matter so it would be voted on. If he had not
done what he did, there probably would have been no vote on the Graham
amendment because the majority would have been able to sidetrack that
amendment.
I think Senator Graham had every right to come forward with whatever
amendment he wanted. Every Member has that right when a bill is open to
amendment. That has been a huge debate for quite a while. The majority
party, for some reason, has decided to try to run the Senate as if it
were the House of Representatives, which means they are trying to
proceed in an autocratic way, where they decide for the minority party
what amendments will be brought forward. That is not appropriate. That
is not the tradition or the purpose of the Senate. The minority party
has an absolute, sacred right to bring forward amendments, and there is
no right in the majority party to ban the capacity of the minority
party to do that, unless the majority party has the capacity to
basically bring down the entire operation of the Senate, which is what
it consistently has been doing--filling the tree time and time again in
an attempt to shut off our party, the minority, from making its points
and bringing forward amendments, which can be debated and voted on, and
then you can get to the underlying bill--which is the way the Senate
worked, by the way, for over 200 years.
Now, another action is occurring here which required Senator Graham
to offer this amendment. He didn't, by choice, pick this bill out of
his interest in the bill to offer the amendment on. He had to offer it
because the majority party is using the rules of the Senate to shut off
all amendments to the bill being proposed by the Senator from Virginia.
The bill of the Senator from Virginia will be marked up in a manner
that will bring it to the floor so that it would not be amendable. That
has been public knowledge around here for weeks--that we were not going
to be given the opportunity to amend the Senator's bill. That is
inappropriate also. So the only way Senator Graham could protect his
rights was to bring this amendment forward at this time. It did nothing
to undermine the movement of this bill forward. If this bill doesn't
move forward--the firefighter bill--it will be because the Democratic
leadership has not been able to schedule the floor in an efficient
enough way to get the bill across the floor. That is the reason. It is
not the failure of the minority to move this bill across the floor. It
is failure of the majority to bring forward the bill in a proper
procedure and allow for a proper amendment process to occur.
I think that point needs to be made. It is like the story of the guy
who kills his parents and throws himself on the jury's mercy because he
claims he is an orphan. The majority party has killed its parents. They
are trying to deny the right of the minority to offer amendments to the
Webb measure. It is inconsistent with the way the Senate should act.
[[Page S4139]]
I think we had a legitimate case with the Graham amendment. I think
the Republican leader did the right thing in filing cloture to force a
vote on that amendment. We have now had a vote, which was a vote to
table. As a practical matter, it hasn't slowed down the firefighter
bill. The bill has not been prejudiced by this action. Rather, the
activity of the Senate, which is to give the minority the right to
amend, has occurred in a proper way. It took work to get it done and
huffing and puffing from the other side of the aisle, saying it should
not be done. The proper order was done, and I congratulate the
Republican leader for following this course.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. WEBB. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
to engage in a colloquy with the senior Senator from Virginia and the
senior Senator from Nebraska.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WEBB. Madam President, I wish to speak for a few minutes about
our bill that the senior Senator from Virginia, the Senator from
Nebraska, and 58 Members of this body in total have cosponsored because
I regret this vote that has just occurred.
I personally did not think it was appropriate that the amendment of
the Senator from South Carolina be placed into this particular
legislation, particularly at a time when there had been a good bit of
discussion about how any suggestions that were viewed as appropriate to
our legislation were welcome. They have been welcome for 16 months.
So I don't want the Members of this body, or other people in our
country, to think that in any way our GI bill legislation is a partisan
measure or a piece of legislation that simply is being driven by the
majority party. In fact, as I said, we have 58 sponsors in the Senate--
11 of them Republicans--including the senior Senator from Virginia,
who, other than myself, is the only person who has served in a policy
position in the Pentagon and who is a former chairman of the Armed
Services Committee, and including the former chairman of the veterans
committee, a Republican, and also including the current chairman of the
Armed Services Committee and the chairman of the veterans committee.
This is a strongly bipartisan bill. It is an attempt to give those
people who serve and have served since 9/11 equitable opportunities for
the future on a level of the people whom we have come to call the
``greatest generation,'' the World War II veterans. That is all this
is. I hope the other Members of this body will come together with us to
pass this legislation.
With respect to amendments to this legislation, I wish to say a
couple things. One, we have worked with all the major veterans groups
over a period of 16 months. We have worked with other Members of this
body over a period of 16 months--Democrats and Republicans. We have
incorporated many different suggestions. This is a bill that I believe
will be dramatically helpful to those who have served, and it will be
something of which the American people can be proud.
In that regard, I say, first of all, on the House side, we have 295
sponsors of this identical legislation, including 91 Republicans. So
let's all get together and let's set partisan bickering aside and do
something affirmative that will allow the people who have been serving
in these arduous times to have a true first-class shot in the future.
With that, I yield to the senior Senator from Virginia, whose advice
and counsel on this bill has been greatly appreciated and whose support
I also appreciate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Virginia is
recognized.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I stand before this Senate, which I have
been in now almost 30 years, with a great sense of humility. I simply
say that I would not be here had it not been for previous GI bills. I
volunteered and served in the last year of World War II as a young
sailor, 17 years old. Subsequently, I volunteered to go into the Marine
Corps in 1948 and served on active duty during the Korean conflict,
1950-1952. That modest World War II service gave me a GI bill to get my
undergraduate degree then, and my modest service in the Marine Corps on
Active Duty--and I stayed in the Reserves for many years afterward--
gave me a second GI bill enabling me to get my law degree. I am here
because of that education given to me and many other by a generous
Nation.
I have joined my distinguished colleague, and dear friend, the junior
Senator from Virginia, Mr. Webb, who was a part of my staff when I was
Under Secretary and Secretary of the Navy. We have known each other for
many years and have worked together prior to coming to the Senate. I
have the greatest admiration for him. He is too modest to talk of his
military career, his service in the Department in the Defense, as
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, and later as
Secretary of the Navy. We have collaborated with the Senator from
Nebraska, who is another distinguished veteran of the Vietnam period. I
think the three of us are highly conscious of what we want to do for
today's generation of young men and women in uniform and their
families.
In the aftermath of World War II, the first GI bill was passed in
1944. Sixteen million men and women were given that educational
opportunity, of which 7.8 million veterans availed themselves of these
GI bill benefits.
All those individuals, including this humble Senator, were given the
option to go to that university or that college of their choice, and
that university or college, because of their academic credentials,
would accept them. The dollars were not a subject, because the GI bill
largely paid for all the expenses incurred by the veterans.
That is the purpose of the Webb bill, to now give to this very
courageous generation the same opportunities my generation had
beginning in 1944. I think today's generation will be judged by history
as just as great, or greater, than the World War II generation. We
should give to this generation nothing less.
I can assure you that, based on my experience--and I think my
colleagues will agree--this will be an inducement to bring more high-
quality individuals into uniform, knowing that for that service, their
Nation would recognize it with the opportunity for them to pursue
further education.
Madam President, I will soon ask to have printed in the Record a part
of the law as it exists today. Much has been said about the
transferability of the GI bill rights to a spouse or a child. The
Committee of the Armed Services on which I serve, put into law the
first option by which a service person could have what is known as
transferability of their GI bill to a spouse or child. It is still the
law of the day.
I think my distinguished colleague from Virginia, having recognized
this as existing law, might well consider it as a part of his
legislation. That is a decision he will make and one I will support.
With that, I will yield the floor at this time.
Mr. WEBB. Madam President, first of all, I say to the senior Senator
from Virginia, I have raised this piece of existing law a number of
times when the individuals who introduced the measure that was just
tabled talked about the need for transferability. This option is
available to service Secretaries at their discretion under the existing
law that the senior Senator from Virginia introduced more than 6 years
ago. It would be, I believe, logical and proper to extend that law to
the new GI bill.
Mr. WARNER. I thank my distinguished colleague. Might that be in the
form of an amendment to the Senator's existing bill?
Mr. WEBB. We would be happy to discuss that as soon as we can meet.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I admire the Senator's willingness to
accept that. It was my hope that perhaps Senators could have worked
together with those who sponsored the bill we just voted to table. But
certainly Republicans exercised their right to have this vote on the
measures put in by Senator Burr and Senator Graham.
Mr. WEBB. Madam President, the Senator from Nebraska is getting ready
to speak. I will point out a couple things. One is that he has served
our country with great distinction as an infantry sergeant in Vietnam
and was wounded. He has been a great friend for many years, 30 years.
He and I came up together working on veterans laws years ago.
[[Page S4140]]
Just as importantly, when I mentioned the senior Senator from
Virginia and myself were the only ones who served in policy positions
in the Pentagon, I believe Senator Hagel is probably the only Member of
this body who has served in a senior policy position in the Department
of Veterans' Affairs.
If anyone is looking at the sense of fiduciary responsibility and the
wisdom that has gone into our bill, I hope they will consider those
sets of experiences.
With that, I yield to the senior Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, I thank both of my distinguished
colleagues for their service to our country and for their leadership on
one of the most important efforts we can make on behalf of those we ask
to do so much for our country.
The reality is, today we are asking less than 1 percent of our
society to bear all the burden, to carry that burden with tremendous
sacrifice, not just for themselves but also a sacrifice called for from
their families. They do it willingly, they do it because they love
their country, and they care about the future of their country.
What this bill is about, as much as any one thing, is supporting our
troops in a time of peace, just as we support our troops in a time of
war. These are men and women who have earned this benefit. Every
generation of veterans since World War II has been acknowledged by a
grateful nation, acknowledged in many ways. Maybe the most important
way is a set of educational benefits they have been given in
appropriate recognition of their service to our country.
Just as Senator Webb noted, what we are doing is rotating these
benefits forward into the 21st century so they are relevant to the
realities of the costs of education today, giving these veterans the
same kinds of opportunities and options that Senator Warner, all of our
World War II veterans have had--our Korean war veterans in the
Congress, and our Vietnam war veterans, all of them have had.
This is not a new program. This is not a welfare program. At a time
when we have no difficulty finding the money to go to war, to place
these men and women in war, we are having some debate over whether we
have the resources, the commitment in this country to find the
resources to do not only what is right but what our Nation has always
done since 1944.
Is that the debate? If that is the debate, we should have a debate
because it is about the prioritization of our people. These young men
and women are expected to go to war, fight and die, many will come back
with tremendous scars, ruined families, and then we disconnect? It is
not enough to slap a bumper sticker on your car and say, ``I support
the troops,'' or for us to stand in the Senate or the House and speak
in abstractions about supporting the troops. This is about supporting
the troops.
My goodness, what is a wiser investment in our society, in our
future, in our country than giving these special men and women the same
opportunities we had to make a better world, not just for themselves
but for our country, through helping to educate these men and women.
We have missed some points in this debate so far. I hope the points I
have covered briefly will come back into some clarity, in some
framework of understanding by the American people as to what this is
about because, as I note again, if this is about not having the
resources to fulfill the commitments we have made for almost 70 years
to America's veterans, if that is the case, then that debate needs to
be ongoing throughout this Nation because I think the American people
will want to say something about this, will want to have something to
say about this, and they should. It is their Nation, their sons and
daughters we send off to war.
This, as Senator Webb has noted, should be an effort to bring our
country together, not divide our country, not divide us between
Republicans and Democrats or between States. This should be some
consensus of purpose to acknowledge these men and women who do so much,
who bear all the burden. That is what this is about.
There will be more debate, and there needs to be more debate. I am as
proud to be part of this effort with my colleagues from Virginia,
Senator Webb and Senator Warner, with 57 other colleagues in the
Senate, and almost 300 in the House, as I have ever been since I have
been in the Senate on behalf of a piece of legislation. This should be
an effort to unite our country, and I believe the American people will
see it that way.
I appreciate very much an opportunity to express some of these points
and for the continued leadership of my friend, Jim Webb.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I say to my good friend and the leader
of this effort, and Senator Hagel, let's clarify what I recommend we
consider. That is the insertion of a provision, if it is so decided by
Senator Webb, on transferability, which would be for an individual to
serve a second tour of service upon the completion of the first tour of
service. This tracks with the 2001 legislation.
Will the Senator from Virginia concur?
Mr. WEBB. Madam President, I say to the senior Senator that I have
read the existing law, and the understanding I have of it is, at the
discretion of a Service Secretary for military occupational
specialities, that as they determine with a reenlistment, that
transferability in increments would be allowed. That is in keeping with
the statements of concern by the Senator from South Carolina about
wanting to use transferability as a retention incentive. It is in
existing law. It has not really been used extensively by the Service
Secretaries. But I agree with the senior Senator that we should look
for a way to continue that in our legislation as well.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague. I am
proud to note that on the Webb bill I think it remains correct at this
time that there are 11 Republican Senators who are cosponsors of the
bill. This clearly indicates that Senator Webb has devised legislation
which is bipartisan, and does reflect, as our colleague from Nebraska
said, the will of the people of the United States to recognize the
extraordinary heroism and commitment of the individual in uniform and
their family and loved ones at home.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record current law enacted in 2001, to which I referred earlier.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
FY2002 NDAA
Subtitle E--Other Matters
SEC. 654. TRANSFER OF ENTITLEMENT TO EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE
UNDER MONTGOMERY GI BILL BY MEMBERS OF THE
ARMED FORCES WITH CRITICAL MILITARY SKILLS.
(a) Authority To Transfer to Family Members.--(1)
Subchapter II of chapter 30 of title 38, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 3020. Transfer of entitlement to basic educational
assistance: members of the Armed Forces with critical
military skills
``(a) In General--Subject to the provisions of this
section, each Secretary concerned may, for the purpose of
enhancing recruitment and retention of members of the Armed
Forces with critical military skills and at such Secretary's
sole discretion, permit an individual described in subsection
(b) who is entitled to basic educational assistance under
this subchapter to elect to transfer to one or more of the
dependents specified in subsection (c) a portion of such
individual's entitlement to such assistance, subject to the
limitation under subsection (d).
``(b) Eligible Individuals.--An individual referred to in
subsection (a) is any member of the Armed Forces who, at the
time of the approval by the Secretary concerned of the
member's request to transfer entitlement to basic educational
assistance under this section--
``(1) has completed six years of service in the Armed
Forces;
``(2) either--
``(A) has a critical military skill designated by the
Secretary concerned for purposes of this section; or
``(B) is in a military specialty designated by the
Secretary concerned for purposes of this section as requiring
critical military skills; and
``(3) enters into an agreement to serve at least four more
years as a member of the Armed Forces.
``(c) Eligible Dependents.--An individual approved to
transfer an entitlement to basic educational assistance under
this section may transfer the individual's entitlement as
follows:
``(1) To the individual's spouse.
``(2) To one or more of the individual's children.
``(3) To a combination of the individuals referred to in
paragraphs (1) and (2).
[[Page S4141]]
``(d) Limitation on Months of Transfer.--The total number
of months of entitlement transferred by an individual under
this section may not exceed 18 months.
``(e) Designation of Transferee.--An individual
transferring an entitlement to basic educational assistance
under this section shall--
``(1) designate the dependent or dependents to whom such
entitlement is being transferred;
``(2) designate the number of months of such entitlement to
be transferred to each such dependent; and
``(3) specify the period for which the transfer shall be
effective for each dependent designated under paragraph (1).
``(f) Time for Transfer; Revocation and Modification.--
``(1) Subject to the time limitation for use of entitlement
under section 3031 of this title, an individual approved to
transfer entitlement to basic educational assistance under
this section may transfer such entitlement at any time after
the approval of the individual's request to transfer such
entitlement without regard to whether the individual is a
member of the Armed Forces when the transfer is executed.
``(2)(A) An individual transferring entitlement under this
section may modify or revoke at any time the transfer of any
unused portion of the entitlement so transferred.
``(B) The modification or revocation of the transfer of
entitlement under this paragraph shall be made by the
submittal of written notice of the action to both the
Secretary concerned and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
``(g) Commencement of Use.--A dependent to whom entitlement
to basic educational assistance is transferred under this
section may not commence the use of the transferred
entitlement until--
``(1) in the case of entitlement transferred to a spouse,
the completion by the individual making the transfer of six
years of service in the Armed Forces; or
``(2) in the case of entitlement transferred to a child,
both--
``(A) the completion by the individual making the transfer
of 10 years of service in the Armed Forces; and
``(B) either--
``(i) the completion by the child of the requirements of a
secondary school diploma (or equivalency certificate); or
``(ii) the attainment by the child of 18 years of age.
``(h) Additional Administrative Matters.--(1) The use of
any entitlement to basic educational assistance transferred
under this section shall be charged against the entitlement
of the individual making the transfer at the rate of one
month for each month of transferred entitlement that is used.
``(2) Except as provided under subsection (e)(2) and
subject to paragraphs (4) and (5), a dependent to whom
entitlement is transferred under this section is entitled to
basic educational assistance under this subchapter in the
same manner and at the same rate as the individual from whom
the entitlement was transferred.
``(3) The death of an individual transferring an
entitlement under this section shall not affect the use of
the entitlement by the dependent to whom the entitlement is
transferred.
``(4) Notwithstanding section 3031 of this title, a child
to whom entitlement is transferred under this section may not
use any entitlement so transferred after attaining the age of
26 years.
``(5) The administrative provisions of this chapter
(including the provisions set forth in section 3034(a)(1) of
this title) shall apply to the use of entitlement transferred
under this section, except that the dependent to whom the
entitlement is transferred shall be treated as the eligible
veteran for purposes of such provisions.
``(6) The purposes for which a dependent to whom
entitlement is transferred under this section may use such
entitlement shall include the pursuit and completion of the
requirements of a secondary school diploma (or equivalency
certificate).
``(i) Overpayment.--(1) In the event of an overpayment of
basic educational assistance with respect to a dependent to
whom entitlement is transferred under this section, the
dependent and the individual making the transfer shall be
jointly and severally liable to the United States for the
amount of the overpayment for purposes of section 3685 of
this title.
``(2) Except as provided in paragraph (3), if an individual
transferring entitlement under this section fails to complete
the service agreed to by the individual under subsection
(b)(3) in accordance with the terms of the agreement of the
individual under that subsection, the amount of any
transferred entitlement under this section that is used by a
dependent of the individual as of the date of such failure
shall be treated as an overpayment of basic educational
assistance under paragraph (1).
``(3) Paragraph (2) shall not apply in the case of an
individual who fails to complete service agreed to by the
individual--
``(A) by reason of the death of the individual; or
``(B) for a reason referred to in section 3011
(a)(1)(A)(ii)(I) of this title.
``(j) Approvals of Transfer Subject to Availability of
Appropriations.--The Secretary concerned may approve
transfers of entitlement to basic educational assistance
under this section in a fiscal year only to the extent that
appropriations for military personnel are available in that
fiscal year for purposes of making deposits in the Department
of Defense Education Benefits Fund under section 2006 of
title 10 in that fiscal year to cover the present value of
future benefits payable from the Fund for the Department of
Defense portion of payments of basic educational assistance
attributable to increased usage of benefits as a result of
such transfers of entitlement in that fiscal year.
``(k) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall
prescribe regulations for purposes of this section. Such
regulations shall specify the manner and effect of an
election to modify or revoke a transfer of entitlement under
subsection (f)(2) and shall specify the manner of the
applicability of the administrative provisions referred to in
subsection (h)(5) to a dependent to whom entitlement is
transferred under this section.
``(l) Annual Report.--(1) Not later than January 31 each
year (beginning in 2003), the Secretary of Defense shall
submit to the Committees on Armed Services and the Committees
on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and House of
Representatives a report on the transfers of entitlement to
basic educational assistance under this section that were
approved by each Secretary concerned during the preceding
fiscal year.
``(2) Each report shall set forth--
``(A) the number of transfers of entitlement under this
section that were approved by such Secretary during the
preceding fiscal year; or
``(B) if no transfers of entitlement under this section
were approved by such Secretary during that fiscal year, a
justification for such Secretary's decision not to approve
any such transfers of entitlement during that fiscal year.
``(m) Secretary Concerned Defined.--Notwithstanding section
101(25) of this title, in this section, the term `Secretary
concerned' means--
``(1) the Secretary of the Army with respect to matters
concerning the Army;
``(2) the Secretary of the Navy with respect to matters
concerning the Navy or the Marine Corps;
``(3) the Secretary of the Air Force with respect to
matters concerning the Air Force; and
``(4) the Secretary of Defense with respect to matters
concerning the Coast Guard, or the Secretary of
Transportation when it is not operating as a service in the
Navy.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by inserting after the item relating to section
3019 the following new item:
``3020. Transfer of entitlement to basic educational assistance: Armed
Forces with critical military skills.''.
(b) Treatment Under Department of Defense Education
Benefits Fund.--Section 2006(b)(2) of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(D) The present value of future benefits payable from the
Fund for the Department of Defense portion of payments of
educational assistance under subchapter II of chapter 30 of
title 38 attributable to increased usage of benefits as a
result of transfers of entitlement to basic educational
assistance under section 3020 of that title during such
period.''.
(c) Plan for Implementation.--Not later than June 30, 2002,
the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report
describing the manner in which the Secretaries of the
military departments and the Secretary of Transportation
propose to exercise the authority granted by section 3020 of
title 38, United States Code, as added by subsection (a). The
report shall include the regulations prescribed under
subsection (k) of that section for purposes of the exercise
of the authority.
(d) Funding for Fiscal Year 2002.--Of the amount authorized
to be appropriated to the Department of Defense for military
personnel for fiscal year 2002 by section 421, $30,000,000
may be available in fiscal year 2002 for deposit into the
Department of Defense Education Benefits Fund under section
2006 of title 10, United States Code, for purposes of
covering payments of amounts under subparagraph (D) of
section 2006(b)(2) of such title (as added by subsection
(b)), as a result of transfers of entitlement to basic
educational assistance under section 3020 of title 38, United
States Code (as added by subsection (a)).
Mr. WARNER. I yield the floor.
Mr. WEBB. I thank both Senators. I yield the floor, Madam President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. How much time remains, Madam President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remains 23\1/2\ minutes to the Senator
from Massachusetts; 12 minutes to the Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Madam President, we had one speaker from my side and then a
colloquy with some people from my side who were involved with the
Senator from Virginia, but I don't think that can hardly be charged to
my side.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I will be glad to yield 10 minutes----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Each Senator who spoke was charged with the
time based on their party.
[[Page S4142]]
Mr. ENZI. I thought I was in charge of half of the time, and I didn't
allocate that time. I can see how the rules go here.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask for additional time. I ask
unanimous consent for an additional 15 minutes for the Senator from
Wyoming.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. And I ask unanimous consent that we will have 10 minutes
on our side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. So the Chair understands, there will be 15
additional minutes for the minority and additional minutes for----
Mr. KENNEDY. I understand we have 22 minutes remaining; is that
right?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Correct.
Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent for 10 additional minutes on our
side and for 15 additional minutes on the other side--or 20 minutes on
the other side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. There
will be 20 additional minutes added to the minority side and 10
additional minutes added to the majority side.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, we have had a very interesting exchange
with both Senators from Virginia and the Senator from Nebraska on a
matter of enormous importance and consequence, and that is our support
for a GI bill that is worthy of the bravery, courage, and valor of
those who are serving in the Armed Forces.
The stated legislative purpose of the Senator from Virginia, Mr.
Webb, who is the architect of this program--and I welcome the chance to
be a cosponsor--is to try and do for those who are in the service of
our country at this time a similar kind of support in education that
those who had served in the colors in World War II received. He has
explained it in great detail.
I look forward to supporting that proposal when it comes up on the
floor of the Senate, probably the early part of next week. I commend
the strong bipartisan support that it has been able to receive. I
commend my former chairman, Senator Warner, who led the Armed Services
Committee so brilliantly for so many years and has made such an
extraordinary contribution to the security of this Nation, both as a
serviceman and also as a policy leader, and to Senator Hagel whom I
think for all of us has demonstrated enormous courage in service and
outside guiding national security policy.
We are going to, after our next couple of speakers, be moving toward
consideration of the farm bill conference report. That is a privileged
matter, and it displaces the underlying legislation we have been
debating, the Cooperation Act, public service legislation we have been
considering both yesterday and today. I expect we will continue through
the evening on the farm conference report. Further action on our
legislation will be deferred until tomorrow.
In conclusion for this afternoon, on the floor we are considering the
service of extraordinary Americans: On the one hand, as Senator Webb
pointed out, those who serve in the armed services of our country, and
on the other hand, we are talking about the 659,000 police officers,
262,000 firefighters, who are in the service of our country trying to
provide for our national security.
We are mindful that we spend $40 billion a year on homeland security.
What this legislation at its heart is all about is to make sure those
service men and women, those police officers, those firefighters, those
EMTs, are going to be safe and secure; that they are going to have the
best in terms of equipment, and that we are going to listen to those
individuals who have dedicated their lives to protecting our fellow
citizens all across America. We are going to listen to their
recommendations and suggestions on how we can improve their safety and
the safety of the American people. We give them a mechanism to be able
to do that. That is the framework which is the underlying aspect of the
legislation we have before us.
People can talk about unfunded mandates and problems of strikes and
all these other items, but nonetheless we cannot and should not and
will not get away from the fundamental thrust of this legislation and
its importance. We have an extraordinary opportunity to make America
safer and more secure--here on the floor of the Senate. Who wants to
have that challenge? It is the police officers and the firefighters and
the first responders who are prepared to accept that responsibility.
All they are asking is to have a voice at the table when judgments and
decisions are being made by maybe well-intentioned policymakers, well-
intentioned bureaucrats. But we want to make sure those out there on
the front lines are at least going to have a voice in these policy
judgments and decisions. That is what this legislation is about. That
is why it is so important.
We are prepared to deal with the various amendments that come up. We
look forward to it. We have gotten off track over the course of the
day. With all due respect to others, we find that with the exception of
the amendment that was being offered by the Senator from Vermont,
Senator Leahy, on bulletproof vests--about which we don't know there is
any substantive objection--all the other amendments have been on the
other side; not from our side, from their side. We have not tried to
interfere with the order those have been offered.
Senator Alexander has been down here and has spoken eloquently. Many
Senators have spoken about their amendments. Senator Hatch was down and
spent time talking about his amendment.
We are prepared to move ahead. If there is need for further debate,
we will have further debate; if not, we are prepared to move ahead and
have the judgment made here in the Senate.
This legislation is extremely important. As I have mentioned, it has
been around for some 9 years. It was introduced initially by a
Republican. It has strong Republican--has strong bipartisan support. I
listened to my friend Senator Warner talk about the strong bipartisan
support there is for the GI bill. There is strong bipartisan support
for this legislation as well, as indeed there should be, and as we have
attempted to achieve. We will continue to work in that area.
We look forward, I expect, to have further consideration on this
tomorrow. I am very appreciative, as always, of my friend and colleague
from Wyoming, Senator Enzi. We have a remarkable area of agreement in
some public policy areas, but we have sharp areas of differences. This
happens to be one of those. This legislation happens to be one of
those. But it does not take away the great respect and affection I have
for him as a legislator and as a friend.
We look forward to continuing this debate and hopefully a resolution
on some of these matters tomorrow.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, it is my understanding our side has 32
minutes remaining. I wish to yield myself up to 10 minutes of that
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Would the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
Mr. CORNYN. Yes.
Mr. KENNEDY. How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 25\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. I am going to yield 15 minutes--10 minutes to Senator
Klobuchar and 10 minutes to the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray,
at an appropriate time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, this Saturday the people in my home
State of Texas will join to celebrate Armed Forces Day and, of course,
shortly thereafter Memorial Day. These are the days we set aside to
honor the men and women who have worn the uniform of the U.S. military,
to honor them for their service and particularly remember those who
made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our freedom.
As I prepare to go home this weekend to join my fellow Texans in
celebrating this important event, I am reminded of the immense debt we
all owe those who have worn the uniform. Of course, this is a debt we
know we can never repay.
From a personal perspective, my father served as a B-17 pilot in
World War II, and served honorably for 31 years in the U.S. Air Force.
He was shot down and spent 4 months in a German prisoner-of-war camp
before General Patton and his army came along and liberated him and his
fellow POWs.
[[Page S4143]]
Of course he, like so many of that generation, came back to his home
and took advantage of the GI bill in order to get an education so he
could then become the foundation upon which America would continue to
build itself in those postwar years and beyond.
The GI bill has done an incalculable benefit not only to the
individual veterans who received those educational benefits but to our
country as well. It is important now, many years later, in 2008, that
we focus our efforts on modernizing that GI bill to make sure the
benefits I know we all want to see directed toward our men and women in
uniform are available to allow them, when they return home from the
fight, to take their uniform off, to get an education, and to achieve
their dreams.
Because I believe we need to modernize the GI bill of rights, when it
comes to educational benefits for our veterans, I have chosen to
cosponsor a bill called S. 2938, the Enhancement of Recruitment,
Retention, and Readjustment Through Education Act. Sadly, and for some
inexplicable reason, we saw that bill tabled by the Senate. I do not
know why, at a time when we ought to be talking about and acting on our
appreciation for our men and women in uniform, the Senate decided to
table this important piece of legislation. But I wish to talk about it
for a minute, to explain to my colleagues what is contained in this
important piece of legislation.
This bill would help our military personnel with an extended range of
options under the GI bill to ensure that they get the benefits they
deserve. It immediately increases education benefits for active-duty
personnel to $1,500 a month and, to encourage retention and
continuation of service in the military, it gradually increases the
education benefits to $2,000 a month after 12 or more years of service.
It expands the authority for servicemembers to transfer--and this is
one of the most important elements of this legislation--it allows them
to transfer their educational benefits to members of their family, a
spouse or a child. After 6 years of service, half of that benefit can
be transferred, and after 12 years of service, 100 percent of the
benefit can be transferred to a child, to a spouse, or some other loved
one.
It increases from $880 to $1,200 per month the education benefits for
Guard and Reserve members called to active duty since September 11,
2001. It allows servicemembers to use up to $6,000 per year of
Montgomery G.I. bill education benefits to repay student loans, and it
provides access to Montgomery GI bill benefits to service academy
graduates and senior reserve officers' training corps officers who
continue to serve beyond their initial commitment.
This legislation is offered as an alternative to S. 22, a bill
produced by my distinguished colleague from Virginia, Senator Webb, and
actually cosponsored by our other distinguished colleague from
Virginia, Senator Warner. I believe both of these bills are born out of
the noblest of aspirations and intentions, but I do believe the
alternatives offered in the bill that has been laid on the table here a
moment ago would actually provide a better range of services to more of
our troops as well as their families. Simply put, I do believe it is a
better fit for our Nation and a better fit for the people of my State
of Texas.
I mentioned the issue of transferability. This is something not found
in the Webb bill that is found in the alternative. To begin with,
Senator Webb's bill fails to recognize the enormous sacrifices our
military families make in support of their loved ones who wear the
uniform of the U.S. military. Talk to any sailor, soldier, airman, or
marine and they will tell you that being able to transfer their GI
educational benefits to their spouses or their children is enormously
important to them. At a time when we depend on an all-volunteer
military, isn't it important that we provide the maximum range of
benefits not only to our veterans but also to the military families,
the people who stay behind while their loved ones are deployed and
whose support they need and depend on, and frankly whose support our
Nation depends on--our military families?
According to all the service chiefs and the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
transferability of this benefit is their No. 1 priority and something
wholly missing from the Webb bill.
As I mentioned, my father served as a bomber pilot in World War II. I
have experienced, as have other military family members, the joint
commitment military families make in support of their loved one in the
military.
In addition to the other benefits, I think this particular provision
of transferability recognizes a fundamental fairness issue and impacts
directly on our ability to retain our servicemembers. Obviously, we
would not want to do anything intentionally which would encourage
people to leave the military after 3 years of service. It is in the
best interests of the United States of America, our strength and
security--it is in the best interests of our all-volunteer military
force to actually encourage and facilitate service of our active-duty
military beyond just an initial tour of 3 years of service.
While we applaud and honor those who serve any period of time in our
military, we do need to make sure we do not create an incentive for
people to leave early in order to get a benefit under this bill. That
is why, under the legislation I am cosponsoring--Senator Graham's bill,
also cosponsored by Senator Burr, Senator McCain, and others--our
career military will receive additional GI bill benefits to reward them
for their continued service.
This bill clearly recognizes you do not have to get out of the
military to be able to continue your education. Like the Webb bill,
troops will be eligible for up to $1,500 monthly benefits after 3 years
of service. However, in order to recognize our career troops as well,
benefits would increase to $2,000 a month after 12 years of service--
clearly providing both a benefit and incentive for people to continue
in military service and not to feel as if they have to leave after 3
years in order to take advantage of this benefit. Unlike the Webb bill,
which caters to those who choose to remain in the service for only 3
years--whose service we earnestly appreciate--the Graham bill I believe
provides short-term rewards and also rewards our career troops as well.
According to the RAND Corporation study conducted in January, 2008,
Senator Webb's bill would:
. . . reduce first-term Army reenlistment by about 12
percentage points from the current rate of 40 percent to
about 28 percent.
This is an important point. The unintended effect of Senator Webb's
bill would actually be to reduce retention from 40 percent to 28
percent.
Madam President, I ask for an additional 2 minutes by unanimous
consent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, why in the world would we want to do
anything that discriminates between those military members who serve
for 3 years and then decide to leave and those who decide to make the
military their career? Why would we want to discriminate against their
families, who might benefit from the transferability option contained
in this alternative legislation which I am supporting? Why would we
want to do anything that would actually damage our ability to encourage
people to stay in the military should they choose that for themselves
and for their families?
I believe this legislation is important not only to our Nation, it
provides an important benefit to our military and their families. It
encourages retention and continuation of service, facilitates those who
do want to stay longer, and creates an enhanced benefit for them.
In a State such as Texas where 1 out of every 10 people in uniform
calls our State home, this is very important to my State and my
constituents. But I will tell you, this is even more important to our
Nation in encouraging that our strong, all-volunteer military force
remain strong and that we meet our commitment to make sure they receive
the benefits they need and they deserve and are not limited only to the
servicemember but can also be extended to family members as well.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Madam President, please advise me after I have spoken for 10
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is an agreement to alternate sides,
Senator.
The Senator from Washington State.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for 10 minutes.
[[Page S4144]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Refueling Tankers
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, when our constituents make decisions
about big purchases such as buying a house or buying a car, the first
thing they do is consider how much money they have to spend, and then
they shop for the best quality they can get for the most reasonable
price for the item that best meets their needs. When the Government
makes a purchase, they expect it to follow that same sort of analysis,
whether it is buying a pencil or jet engines. But that is not what our
military did when it made its decision to buy the next generation of
refueling tankers from Airbus instead of from Boeing.
Compared to Boeing's 767, Airbus's A330 is massive. The simple truth
is that a bigger plane is going to be more expensive. The bigger plane
the Air Force wants to buy is going to burn more fuel, it is going to
take up more space, and it is going to require more people to maintain
it. But our hangars, our runways, and our ramps today are all designed
for a much smaller tanker.
I also have serious concerns and questions about how much Airbus's
tanker is going to cost in fuel and personnel and maintenance. In the
months that have passed now since the military announced it had
selected Airbus for this massive contract, I have repeatedly asked the
Pentagon whether it considered how it will pay for the extra costs of a
much bigger plane. I have been astounded that no one has been able to
answer my questions. In other words, the military said it wants to
spend more than $100 billion to buy bigger planes, but it has no idea
where it is going to put them, it does not know who is going to
maintain them, and it does not know how we are going to pay to operate
them. That makes no sense to me. I am very concerned about how much
this decision is going to cost us, and that is why I have come to the
floor this afternoon. Let me explain why I am troubled about this
decision.
First of all, we do not know what the possible military construction
costs might be for this purchase. It is estimated that these planes are
too big for many of our hangars and that they are too heavy for many of
our runways and our ramps. These tankers I am talking about are the
backbone of our military. These refueling tankers make our global Air
Force possible. Today, they are stationed around the world. So we are
not only buying airplanes we can keep anywhere, the tanker has to be
able to take off and land from almost anywhere in the world.
The new tankers are supposed to be a replacement for our current
fleet of medium-sized Boeing KC-135s. But compared to our current
tankers and compared to the 767, the Airbus plane the Air Force has
decided to purchase is massive. Airbus's A330 is 32 feet longer than
Boeing's 767. The Airbus A330's wingspan is 41 feet wider. The A330
weighs about 20 percent more than the Boeing plane. Our military
experts have said they think the A330 will be able to operate on only
about half of the airfields the Boeing 767 can use--about half of our
airfields. That means some of our infrastructure in this country and
across this globe is going to be torn down and refitted to accommodate
these new planes they have decided to buy.
Secondly, oil and gas prices are a major factor of the cost of
operating a refueling tanker. I am very concerned because a larger
plane is obviously going to burn more fuel and cost dramatically more
over the lifetime of these planes. In fact, because the Airbus A330 is
larger and heavier than the Boeing 767, it is going to burn 24 percent
more fuel. That means that fueling planes the size of the A330 will
cost $30 billion more over the lifetime of this plane. That is
astonishing when you think that the initial cost for this contract is
$35 billion. Fuel alone is going to double the cost of these planes.
Americans are up in arms today about the cost of gas for their own
cars. How do you think they are going to react if our Air Force chooses
to use their tax dollars, American tax dollars, to fuel massive
airplanes when there is a cheaper option available?
Third, the larger A330 is going to require bigger refueling and
ground crews. Because buying a larger plane means it will not be able
to use standard-size military pallets, the military, in making this
purchase, is now going to need more personnel and airmen to load and
unload every A330 tanker.
Finally, these larger planes are going to cost the military more to
maintain. Not only will the A330 simply need more maintenance over its
lifetime, larger crews are going to be needed to work on them. Because
the planes are bigger, they are going to have to be packed in closer at
our bases, and packing them in closer is going to make maintaining and
getting them off the ground more dangerous for our airmen and airwomen.
Now, I have been asking some pretty tough questions about how we got
to this point, how the Air Force chose the Airbus plane over the Boeing
plane, because it does not make sense to me that we would send this
contract overseas when we have the capability and the right plane right
here at home.
I have specifically asked about the military's construction costs. At
four hearings now, four hearings in the last 3 months, I have asked our
military officials whether they can tell me if they did an analysis of
the potential construction costs of buying these larger planes before
they reached their decision. Do you know what. I was shocked by their
answer. It was: No. No. No. They did not do an analysis of how much it
would cost for these larger planes. That means the Pentagon launched a
major contract to replace a plane that we will have for decades that is
going to cost us billions of dollars, but apparently it never did a
complete, independent analysis of the potential military construction
costs of buying that much larger plane.
I am concerned that even though I have asked for an estimate of these
costs and even though several of my colleagues here in the Senate and
the House have asked for the same information, we do not have an
answer.
I first asked Air Force Secretary Wynne about these costs on March
12. I asked him: What will be the associated costs for our military
construction budget, and can these Airbus planes fit in the hangars we
have today? That is what I asked. At the time, Secretary Wynne could
not answer me. He only said to me that the RFP did not indicate any
size. So I asked again on April 24, this time with two Pentagon
officials, Comptroller Tina Jonas and Under Secretary of Defense Wayne
Arny, and they said they were not part of any decisionmaking process
and could not comment. So on May 8 and then again today, I asked what
the cost of this larger tanker would be for the National Guard and
Reserve. Today, the Guard promised to get back to me with an answer.
Well, I hope they do.
I am extremely frustrated that we cannot get this information. We are
talking about spending billions and billions of taxpayer dollars, and
we are talking about a decision that affects our global military power.
I am baffled as to why the Pentagon did not do a top-to-bottom analysis
of every aspect of this very expensive decision. ``I don't know'' is
not an acceptable answer when we are asking American taxpayers to foot
the bill for purchasing these planes.
Now, this process has been flawed from the start. As a result, it is
now being appealed to the GAO. But regardless of the GAO's findings, I
think we, as Members of Congress, as representatives of the American
people, should be very concerned about the way the military reached
this decision. No family would buy an 18-wheeler if all they needed was
a station wagon. And the military should not be buying a jumbo jet that
is extremely expensive when what it really needs and what it has told
us it needs is an agile refueling tanker. It is common sense.
I think we need some real answers about why the Pentagon believes
this decision is worth the taxpayers' money. I hope our colleagues will
join with me in demanding that we get that information before we make a
mistake that will cost us billions of dollars that we cannot afford to
waste.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to change the
order. My friend from South Carolina, Senator Graham, has allowed me to
go. I ask unanimous consent to speak and then to be followed by the
Senator from South Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page S4145]]
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I come to the floor today to express
my strong support for the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation
Act that the Senate is currently considering, legislation that will
ensure our public safety officers are treated with the respect and the
dignity they unquestionably deserve.
I have always believed the first responsibility of government is to
protect its citizens. I believe that responsibility begins right here
at the local level in our neighborhoods and in our communities with our
law enforcement officers. To fulfill that essential responsibility, our
local public safety officers need the support of the Government in
Washington.
Before I came to Washington, like you, I served as a prosecuting
attorney. I served for 8 years as a chief prosecutor for Minnesota's
largest county. During that time, I saw firsthand the critical and
courageous contributions our police officers, firefighters, paramedics,
and our public safety personnel make on a daily basis. I gained an
unending appreciation for their service in keeping our communities safe
and secure. When I came to Washington, I made a commitment that I would
remember the officers I had worked alongside in Minnesota and that I
would do everything I could to see that they received the full
resources and support they deserve.
This bill would demonstrate our support by allowing public safety
officers to be treated as they should, by promoting basic fairness in
their working standards. It does so in a way that allows States to
retain the flexibility to craft their own standards to suit their local
conditions.
My State of Minnesota is fortunate to be one of 26 States that
already grant collective bargaining rights to their public safety
employees. Our police officers, firefighters, and paramedics enjoy
strong relationships with the State, counties, and cities that employ
them, which enhances their ability to protect the communities they
serve.
When public safety employers and employees work together, it reduces
worker fatalities and improves the quality of service. We need these
valuable partnerships to be at their strongest if we are going to be
able to properly respond to disasters and emergencies that strike at
our homeland security.
Our State is well aware of this. We have had our share of tragedies
this year, from the collapse of the I-35W bridge to the floods in
southern Minnesota in which several people died, to the fires up in
northern Minnesota in the Ham Lake area over through the Canadian
border. This week thousands of police officers have come to Washington
to commemorate National Police Week. I have had an opportunity to meet
with these police officers. I had the opportunity to meet with
paramedics when I was home a week ago. I have had the opportunity to
see our firefighters at work. We must respect these hard-working public
servants. This respect should be fundamental to the work we do.
I told these officers and paramedics and firefighters that I would
come to the floor to speak in support of this legislation and that I
was hopeful our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would join us
in passing this law. What they want is what they have in our State.
They want the right to be treated with the respect of colleagues all
across the country. In the last several years, specifically after 9/11,
we have placed even greater responsibilities on police and other public
safety officers. At a time when State and local budgets are tight,
these Federal funds have become more important in assisting local law
enforcement to fulfill their duties to protect communities. By passing
this legislation and guaranteeing the basic rights it provides and
working to deliver the full resources and assistance these officers
need to continue their exemplary work, we can demonstrate our
acknowledgment and appreciation for the work they do every day.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Madam President, I ask to be notified after 8 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KYL. First, I compliment Senator Warner and Senator Webb for
several weeks ago crafting legislation to provide some changes in our
GI benefits for educational purposes. I support an alternative measure
which has been developed in the weeks since then, among other things,
because the Defense Department, led by Secretary Gates, has analyzed
the requirements that the Defense Department has and has suggested a
different approach than that originally taken by Senators Warner and
Webb. That approach is embodied in legislation authored by Senator
Graham, Senator McCain, Senator Burr, and others. It is S. 2938. I will
describe the key point in a moment, but I was very disappointed an hour
or so ago when, after Senator Graham had offered this legislation as an
amendment, it was tabled. Our colleagues didn't want to have a vote on
it. I would think that at least we could have a fair up-or-down vote on
the legislation, particularly since it is the approach that has been
recommended by Secretary Gates and the Defense Department. I believe it
is the approach President Bush would prefer. I believe it would solve
the problem we are trying to solve.
Everybody knows that next week, when the supplemental appropriations
bill comes before us, the bill that will enable us to fund the troops
missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Warner-Webb bill will be included
as a part of that. We will not have an opportunity to try to amend it.
That was the purpose of the Senator from South Carolina offering the
amendment today. We have now been foreclosed from voting on that. That
is not right, especially since this is the superior of the two
approaches.
The key here has to do with the original intent of the GI bill and
today's circumstances. After World War II, when most of the members of
the Armed Forces had been drafted, came back from the Pacific and
European theaters, many of them had been drafted right out of high
school or perhaps they were not even in school. They, obviously, saw
the importance of getting a college education. A grateful nation said:
You have been plucked out of your family circumstance, maybe out of
high school. You were not able to attend college, although some were in
college when they were drafted. We want to pay something back to you
and send you to college, if you would like to do that. That was the GI
benefit.
Today the circumstances are much different. We don't have the draft
anymore. We didn't have millions and millions of servicemen mustered
out of the service, ready to go to college. Today we have exactly the
opposite. We need to attract good men and women to serve in our forces,
and we need to provide them the kind of benefits that are attractive to
them in today's world. They are a very different, diverse group of
people. The kind of educational benefit likewise needs to respond to
that kind of diversity and circumstance. That is the reason this GI
bill is being modernized and updated.
The key point Senator Graham will make and that Secretary Gates has
made, as my colleague Senator McCain has said, is that instead of a
group of people who have been mustered out of the service, we aren't
trying to get people out of the service. Today we are trying to retain
folks, good people who have been educated and trained in the military.
We want to have as many of those men and women stay in the military as
possible.
Clearly, recruitment and retention in an all-volunteer force is
critical to an effective military. That is what Secretary Gates was
speaking of when he said:
Our first objective is to strengthen the all-volunteer
force. Accordingly, it is essential to permit transferability
of unused education benefits from servicemembers to family.
Transferability supports military families, thereby enhancing
retention.
That is the key difference between these two approaches. I would hope
that my colleagues who originally wanted to support an approach that
Senators Warner and Webb wrote would recognize that there has been an
improvement to that in the legislation Senators Graham, Burr, and
McCain have offered and would support that alternative which provides
for transferability.
There are a couple of other differences. I wish to briefly highlight
them. The fact that the Warner-Webb
[[Page S4146]]
bill costs more certainly should not be necessarily an argument against
it, but it certainly should not be an argument for the legislation
either. If we can deliver the same services in a more efficient way,
that is good, not bad. As to that point, one of the other differences
between the legislation of Senator Graham and the previously introduced
bill is that this recognizes everyone in a fair way, providing the same
benefit. It doesn't discriminate against people who attend a less-
expensive, State-sponsored school in favor of one who attends a more
expensive private school, for example. You have the same kind of
benefit. It is an adequate benefit because of the increases provided
for in the bill.
The bottom line, the reason I strongly support the legislation
introduced by my colleagues from South Carolina and from Arizona is
because it responds to today's circumstances, the all-volunteer force,
where we are trying to keep more people in the military as opposed to
the other approach, which is an extension of the old GI bill which was
provided for people who were leaving the military. That is the key
difference and the reason why I urge my colleagues to support the
approach Senator Graham is providing. I hope, even though we have had
this legislation now tabled, that we will have an opportunity to
actually vote on it in the future. I encourage my colleagues to support
us in providing an opportunity to vote on the legislation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). The Senator from South
Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. Can the Chair let me know when I have 2 minutes
remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. How much time does the Senator request?
Mr. GRAHAM. Fifteen minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 14 minutes remaining. The Senator
will be advised when there is 12 minutes remaining.
Mr. GRAHAM. Let's talk about the policy and then the politics.
Everything seems to be in the case of politics. Most Members of the
body would like to pass some legislation this year that would improve
GI benefits for those who serve and leave and for those who continue to
serve. Putting this bill, the Webb bill, on the supplemental emergency
funding for the war, a mandatory entitlement program put on a
supplemental emergency spending bill for the war is not the way to go.
Having a supplemental involving spending for the war that can't be
amended is not the way to go. Putting the bill on the firefighter-
police officer legislation is not the way to go, but it is the only way
I had to go. I have sat down with Senator Webb and his staff. I hope we
can find common ground. I have never doubted the desire of Senators
Webb or Warner to increase the benefit. Senator Webb's service to the
country has been extraordinary in combat, as Secretary of the Navy, as
has Senator Warner's. Obviously, they have a desire and some expertise
in this area to upgrade basic GI benefits. I share that desire and hope
this body can do something necessary.
But as Senator Kyl said, quite frankly, I don't agree with their
approach. The need is there, but the first thing all of us in this body
should do is not compound a problem our current forces have, and that
is retention. In the name of trying to help recruit people to the
military, you don't create a benefit that the Congressional Budget
Office and the Pentagon say will hurt retention. It makes perfect sense
to me that the approach of Senators Webb and Warner will hurt
retention. It is $50-something billion of new spending, and it is all
geared to the people who leave the military after 3 years. As Senator
Kyl indicated, this is a different war. Unless we start drafting
people, which nobody appears to want, including me, we need to let
those who serve and continue to serve know how much we appreciate what
they are doing and give them incentives to stay around because every
person who will stay in the military to make it a career is a godsend
to this country because we are being defended by volunteers.
So how about this idea? Increase the basic benefit, as Senators
Warner and Webb have proposed but do it in a way that makes the most
sense for the entire force. The current amount of money available to
someone who leaves the military after 3 years of service to go to
college is $1,100 a month. That used to be the average cost of a State
college tuition, including room and board. It is now up to $1,500 a
month as an average cost. What we have done in our approach is raise
the benefit to $1,500, which is the average cost of a State college,
room and board. To me, that is a worthy goal for the Nation to pursue.
Senators Webb and Warner have a new formula, a new way of delivering
benefits that misses the mark. Instead of paying every GI who leaves
the service $1,500 a month, and under our bill $1,000 a year for books
and fees, what Senator Webb proposes is that you would look at the
school, the highest State school, the highest State institution in
terms of tuition in each State, and the GI would receive the amount of
money that would pay for that school. So in Michigan, the most
expensive State school is $13,000. In South Carolina, it is $5,000 or
$6,000. So based on where you live, you could have a disparity in how
much benefits come to the veteran. I don't think that is the way to go.
What we have tried to do is make the benefit that exists today
reflect the reality of today for those who leave.
If somebody wants to go to Harvard or Yale, what we do under the bill
is we tell the institution, if you will forgive 25 percent of the
difference between what the Government pays and the tuition, we will
put an extra thousand on the table. If you will forgive 50 percent of
the indebtedness, we will put more money on the table. If you will
forgive the entire indebtedness, I think we would go up to like $3,000,
maybe $3,500 a month. That way the institution can get over $40,000,
and the veteran can go to that school without any debt. So we have a
program in the bill to try to get institutions on the higher end,
private schools, to work with veterans to get them through their
institutions and put more money on the table.
But the big point I am trying to make is, under our approach, we have
a component not found in the Webb bill that the country needs. Right
now the GI benefits that are earned after 3 years of service under the
Webb approach, $55 billion is spent on that population, not one penny
of additional incentive to stay around. Do you know what America needs?
We need to take care of those who serve and leave because they have
done the country a great service. But as a nation, we need to
desperately try to retain people who are willing to serve longer. So
what do we do? Senator Burr and myself, Senator McCain, we have
listened to the troops. What do the troops want? What do those in
uniform want from the GI benefit reform? They would like to transfer
their benefits to their spouse or their children.
Under our approach, if you stay 6 years, that $1,500-a-month benefit,
that $1,000-a-year payment for books and fees, 50 percent of it can be
transferred to a spouse or child. That would revolutionize the way this
benefit package is being used today. Fifty percent of the people
eligible for GI benefits in today's world never use them. If you could
transfer those benefits, it would be a higher utilization, and the
benefit would be to the family members of the military member, the ones
they love and care about the most. If you will stay in 12 years, at the
12-year point under our bill, the benefit goes from $1,500 a month to
$2,000 a month, and you can transfer all of it.
Now, what does that mean? That means if you will continue to serve
our country, at the 12-year point you do not have to worry about your
kids' ability to go to college anymore. What does that mean? That means
your retirement pay has more value. A lot of people are getting out of
the military at the 8- and 10-year point because they have a couple
kids and they wonder: Can I send them to college on a military salary?
Wouldn't it be wonderful to check that block and say: You can stay in
the military, get your 20 years, get your retirement, and also have a
benefit to pay for your kids' college that will not come out of your
retired pay? This will revolutionize retention.
The CBO says for every $10,000 of educational benefit increase, you
lose a percent in retention. Under the Webb approach, we would lose 8
to 9 percent a year in retention, at a time we need to retain more.
[[Page S4147]]
Under our approach, not only are we going to give more money to those
who serve and leave--a very generous benefit--we are also going to put
money on the table for the first time in the history of the GI program
to reward those who stay. Most people who serve 20 years are going to
come out with a college degree they earned in the military without ever
using their benefits. The ability to transfer the benefit to a family
member is enormous. Again, it will allow the retired pay--of those who
go to 20 years--to have much more bang for the buck. They will have
their college paid for.
When I talk to people in the Guard and Reserve and Active Forces,
they tell me they would love to have the ability to transfer their GI
benefits once they get their degree to a spouse or a child.
It would help retention. It would help families. It is, in my
opinion, the best bang for the taxpayer buck.
Now, where are we going to go? Here is what is going to happen.
Madam President, how much time is left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes more before his 2-
minute warning. The Senator has 5 minutes.
Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, thank you.
We have a choice to make as a body. We can find some middle ground
and pass a bill that 100 people would vote for or we can put the Webb
amendment on the supplemental in its current form without any changes,
table my bill, and say: Go off in the corner and be quiet. Well, that
``ain't'' going to happen. I am not going to be quiet. I am going to
urge the President to veto the Webb bill in its current form because no
matter how well-intended it is, it will hurt retention. It will hurt
retention at a time, as a nation, when we need to enhance retention.
I have a different approach, and I think it makes sense. But I am
willing to meet people in the middle. I am not going to be put in a box
of having to vote no and be accused of not caring. Well, I have another
approach. I think it serves the country well. I am willing to meet in
the middle. I hope we can find some middle ground. At the end of the
day, helping veterans and rewarding those who serve is a shared value--
not a Democratic value. It is a shared value by all Americans:
Republicans, Independents, and Democrats.
Two things are important to the American people at a time of national
crisis, at a time of a two-front war. Let's come together and help
those who are willing to put on the uniform. Count me in for increasing
the benefits for those who serve 3 years and leave. You have done your
country a great service. I want to make sure you have money to go to
college, that you are well rewarded for your service.
But work with me to do something for those who continue to serve.
Reward them. That has never been done before in the GI bill. It is time
for the GI bill to change. It is time to have money on the table to
reward those families and military members who stay around and keep
going back and keep fighting. If you want to help the military, the men
and women in uniform who decide to make this a career, allow their
benefits to be transferred to their loved ones, allow military members
who serve for 12 years and beyond a chance to send their kids to
college with GI benefits and not have to use their retirement.
So I look forward to this debate. It is going to be a chance to do
some good or it is going to be politics as usual. Well, that is a
decision we are all going to have to make. I hope we can do the country
some good. To me, the best thing we can do for the country and for
those men and women who serve--and continue to serve--is to do
something new, something long overdue and new; that is, to allow them
to transfer their benefits to their family members. That will help
retention. It will reward those families who sacrifice alongside the
servicemember. I have talked with enough family members to know how
much this would change and help improve family life in the military.
With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
Mr. BURR. Madam President, I thank the Presiding Officer and I thank
my colleague, Senator Graham, and I really do thank my colleagues from
both sides of the aisle who have come to the floor and talked about the
GI bill and the fact that we were asleep for a number of years from the
standpoint of making changes in the law that reflect the cost of
education.
But what I want my colleagues to understand and the public to
understand is that the Department of Defense used what we call
education kickers to provide retention tools for our Active-Duty
troops. Throughout this whole period, as they saw promising service men
and women and they wanted them to stay in the military, they used what
we call education kickers. They upped the amount of their education
benefit if they would re-up for a period of time--3 years, 5 years, 6
years.
So to say that $1,100 was the ceiling, that is not accurate. The fact
is, we have reached a point in time when we need to change the number
in the law, what the base amount is that is the promise this country is
making to our service men and women when they serve. I think it is
appropriate, given we have gone through a decade--and I am sure most
Americans would not find this hard to believe--where the highest area
of inflation in America over the last 10 years has not been health
care. It has been higher education. For any parent who is going through
higher education with a child today, they know exactly what that
means--that it costs a whole lot to go there.
Senator Webb deserves a lot of credit because for 18 months he has
talked about changing our financial level of commitment. I have to say
that has been healthy for the men and women who are serving. It has
been healthy for this Senate to begin the debate on it. I do not want
anybody to leave this debate and feel we are not both headed in the
same direction. It is just that I have some fundamental disagreements
with the way he structured it.
I believe there is a way to fulfill the promise, that if you serve,
then we are going to commit to you, we are going to provide you with a
quality education. When my dad came back from the Second World War, he
had most of his education paid for before he left, but this is not
something he went out and shopped. This is not something where he said:
Gee, there is a benefit. Let me find the most expensive place I can go,
and let me exercise it there. He focused on what he wanted to be and
where the tools were that were available to him.
Sometimes we have to stop for a minute and reflect: What are the
unintended consequences of what we do in this body? Well, one thing
with the Webb bill is we disregard the fact that part of higher
education comes out of the Department of Education today. It is called
Pell grants. For those service men and women who qualify for them, that
goes toward their education. The way this bill is written, we pay for
their education, and the Pell grant, if they qualify--which most
would--is then available for them after their education to pocket as
cash. I am not sure that is the promise we made. I am not sure it is
the promise the American people are committed to fulfill. I am not sure
it is what our service men and women expect. They want an education.
What we have done is we have structured an alternative, the Grahamm-
Burr-McCain bill, that provides exactly that. It is targeted at the
average of the cost of public education in America. Now, fundamentally,
I do not believe a student who picks an art and design school in the
State of Michigan should be entitled to $13,000 for that school. Yet if
he chooses the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, then he is
only going to get $5,300.
Why is there a discrepancy in those two schools? Because States
subsidize higher education at a different level because it is a State
decision. It is State money that is used to subsidize higher education.
In North Carolina, we choose to subsidize higher education to the tune
of 70 percent. We do not expect every State to choose to subsidize it
at that level.
But by the same token, why would we create a program that
disenfranchises North Carolina, that says to North Carolina: Oh, boy,
you are going to be cheated because you subsidize higher education so
that more of your kids can have an affordable option. And because now
the Federal Government
[[Page S4148]]
would have paid everything, you are going to lose money because you
subsidize higher education. Unintended consequence: We are going to
chase States out of the business of subsidizing higher education.
What is the net effect? Every kid in America who does not serve 3
years Active Duty, cumulative, is going to pay more because States are
not going to subsidize. I am not sure that is what we are after. I
surely do not suggest that is the intent of Senator Webb's legislation.
It is what will happen if, in fact, we pass the legislation.
So Senator Graham and I and Senator McCain looked for: How do we take
the existing system--not create a new one; this is not a wheel that is
broken; it works, but let's fund it at today's funding needs.
Now, Senator Graham covered a lot of things that are in the bill. For
an Active-Duty servicemember who serves 3 years Active Duty, we are
going to provide $1,500 in living expense and tuition every month as a
benefit. We are going to provide $1,000 for books and fees a year. For
that individual who stays in the military over 6 years, 50 percent of
the education benefit they accrue is transferable to a family member: a
spouse or child. If a servicemember chooses to serve for 12 years or
more, 100 percent of their GI education benefit is now transferable to
a spouse or a child.
I think it is safe to say that for most who make a career out of the
military, they have numerous opportunities to enhance their academic
achievements on Active Duty. So the likelihood is a 20-year veteran of
our services probably has all the education they need, and they have a
huge education benefit. I cannot think of a better reward to people who
have served their country than to say: Let's make this benefit
available so you can educate your children. Let them choose the States
that highly subsidize so they get more bang for their buck.
Senator Graham covered the fact that we put the responsibility for
private schools to fill the gap on the private schools. We say to an
institution: Do you know what. You are willing to retire debt for low-
income Americans today. Well, let's see what type of commitment you are
going to make for veterans, people who are part of the GI program.
Senator Webb's bill says to the school, Harvard, Yale, Duke, schools
that have $35,000 tuitions: Do you know what. We are only paying $5,000
in North Carolina, so, Duke, if you get one of these, that $20,000-some
difference--$25,000, $30,000 difference--for every dollar you put in,
the Federal Government is going to put in.
What I say, in the legislation, to Duke is: All right. We are putting
$14,400 in the pot for that GI. The difference is indebtedness at the
end of his career. If you are willing to retire 25 percent of it, then
we are going to put an extra $1,000 in the pot. If you are willing to
retire 50 percent, we are putting $2,000 in the pot. If you are willing
to retire 100 percent of the debt, we are going to put more money into
the pot. We are not going dollar for dollar because I do not think that
is our responsibility. There has to be a side of the academic
institutions that is willing to also recognize the service of our men
and women in uniform.
We were denied the opportunity to have a vote on a piece of
legislation earlier today. It is a rule of the Senate that you can
offer a motion to table an amendment. What does tabling an amendment
mean? It means we were denied the opportunity to vote on a real
education package for our service men and women.
What is the reason somebody would do that? Well, fear that we were
going to win. Fear that enough Members would look at it and vote for it
on the merits of the legislation, that we would win. What is the
likelihood we are going to have an opportunity to offer our amendment?
Probably none. Because the Webb amendment is going to be masked in an
emergency supplemental that is going to be made up of war funding,
funding that most Members--this one has no idea what other earmarked
programs Members of the Senate are going to stick in it or the House of
Representatives.
I would say to my colleagues, we ought to vote against the entire
package, except for war funding. We ought to come to the floor. We
ought to have a side by side: the Webb bill, the Graham bill. We ought
to debate it on the merits, but we ought to take into account the needs
of our military. To ignore retention, to ignore the tools the military
needs to make sure our Nation is secure and strong, is absolutely
ignorant. Now, it may be before it is over we are able to influence the
authors of the other legislation to put transferability in theirs. But
I have to say to my colleagues that the structure is fundamentally
flawed.
I am the ranking member of the Veterans Affairs' Committee.
Currently, the GI bill is administered partly out of DOD, partly out of
the Department of Education, partly out of the Veterans'
Administration. We have a Veterans' Administration today that is
challenged to process the amount of disability claims, the appeals to
disability claims, the appeals to medical services that are delivered.
Now we are saying let's create a big new program and let's dump it in
the Veterans' Administration and let's ask them to run it. How
incredibly insensitive to the work that is currently going on but how
insensitive to the needs of our veterans who are injured--those who
come back from Iraq and Afghanistan, those who transition out of Active
Duty to veteran status who need a Veterans' Administration that is 100
percent focused on the delivery of health care, the processing of
disability claims, and making sure every veteran is matched with a
check that they need for their livelihood.
Now we are going to say: But we want you to now run education. We
want to take the Department of Education out of it. We want to take DOD
out of it. We want the Veterans' Administration to be responsible.
Millions and millions, hundreds of millions of dollars is going to be
needed to administer this program, hundreds of millions of dollars.
Forget the fact that to write the regulations out of a new agency is
probably going to take well over a year. That is why the Webb bill is
not proposed to start for some time after this body passes it.
I am sure we are going to have ample time to talk about the education
benefit for our military members. I am not sure we are going to have an
opportunity to have a choice. I am convinced people asked me to come
here and serve to represent North Carolina to make sure we have a
choice, and that it wasn't a choice between something and nothing, but
that it was a choice between something and something. Every Member of
the Senate--100 Members--should have the opportunity to come to this
floor and to offer what they think is the solution to a problem. Not on
this. We tried to do it because we didn't think we would get an
opportunity, and instead of getting an up-or-down vote on a very
important piece of legislation that provides and extends and revamps
the GI education benefit for our military, it was decided that we were
all going to have the opportunity to table consideration. I am not sure
that is why we were all elected to be here. I think to some degree it
shows what is worse about the institution that we are not willing to
tackle.
This is the institution of great debate, and when we have big issues,
we run from the debate, hoping that the American people aren't looking,
hoping that nobody will read about what we have done, that nobody will
see the missed opportunity. I will tell my colleagues, our service men
and women aren't going to miss this one. It is not going to be over
with a simple tabling vote. This is something that will continue to
educate the American people and, more importantly, the men and women
who put on a uniform and never ask why but go exactly where our
Commander in Chief asks them to go.
I urge my colleagues to pay very special attention as we go through
the debate on this legislation. Ask yourself not only is it right, ask
yourself are the consequences of what we do the consequences that we
would want to have happen. If there are unintended consequences to
this, the general public of young people who are looking at higher
education as an absolute necessity of their livelihood in the future
are disenfranchised in some way by this. If servicemembers aren't
allowed to extend an education benefit to their children or to their
spouse, and it just goes away, have we really done our job? I think the
answer is going to be no.
So I encourage the leadership in the majority to give us an
opportunity to
[[Page S4149]]
have a fair up-or-down vote. Give us the opportunity to compare two
pieces of legislation. Nobody should be scared to do that. Let America
decide based upon their representatives in the Senate which one better
fulfills the promise we have made to the men and women who serve but,
more importantly, what upholds the structure of higher education in
this country and doesn't disenfranchise or disadvantage any student now
or in the future.
I am convinced we can only achieve that if we recognize a benefit
that is uniform and equal across the board, not one that is determined
by where you choose to go to school, not a benefit that is determined
by where you choose to live, but a benefit that fulfills every promise
that we are going to provide an education and put some degree of
individual responsibility on how that is exercised. I am convinced that
for those who may choose a community college versus a 4-year
university, the savings they have should be savings they extend to
their children and to their spouse.
That would not happen under the current Webb bill; it will just go
away. They will miss out on that opportunity. They will never know that
unless we are willing to have a debate on this floor. They are never
going to know it unless we are provided the opportunity to present them
with a choice between something and something versus something and
nothing.
I thank the Chair for the time extended to me.
At this time I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pryor). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak
in morning business for up to 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the question of updating GI bill
education benefits for our veterans and service personnel is something
that we need to do. I think all of us agree on that. I have to say that
how we do it, however, is very important.
The Webb-Warner bill, as written, fails in some very important ways,
ways that make it poor legislation. We need to be honest about that.
I believe the bill offered by Senators McCain, Burr, and Graham is
much better legislation. Frankly, I thank Senator McCain for having the
gumption to stand up and see the problems with this legislation. He
said he knew it was important and he was willing to take some political
heat here to try to do the right thing.
Let me read you what the Congressional Budget Office has said about
this legislation.
This is what they say about retention. We heard that in remarks from
some Senators earlier, but retention deals with how many people re-up
and decide after their initial tour of duty is up to make a longer--a
new commitment to stay in the military for a longer period or even make
it a career. We are in a career military, and I could not be more proud
of them. They are performing so exceptionally well. No person who has
been around the military for a few years would ever want to go back to
the system we had before. This one is working surprisingly well, beyond
our expectations. And even in this war where if you reenlist you are
likely to be sent abroad, retention continues to be very high.
What will this bill do? According to the Congressional Budget Office,
S. 22, as amended, would, in effect, result in ``a 16-percent decline
in the reenlistment rate.'' I am telling you, those of us who have been
watching the reenlistment rate as members of the Armed Services
Committee--and I have been on that committee since I have been in the
Senate, and I know the Presiding Officer, Senator Pryor, is on that
committee and knows these issues--reenlistment is critical. This Webb
amendment has the perverse effect of paying people to leave the
military. We should not do that. We should create incentives as the
Burr-McCain-Graham bill does. It encourages people to stay in and gives
even more rewards if they stay in and their family more rewards if they
stay in. That is the right thing for us to do. I wanted to mention that
point.
I am also troubled by how the money is allocated. We have done a
calculation. The way it is set up under the Webb amendment, if a person
were to take advantage of this GI bill benefit under his provision, a
University of Alabama student could receive $13,569 per year and a
student at Auburn University would receive $13,355 a year, but a
student at the University of Michigan would receive $22,413. That is an
$8,000 difference. That is a lot. Is this what we want to do? I don't
know what they would give somebody who is an Arkansas Razorback. They
would probably give them less than that. No, that is a great
university. I don't see any need for me to be supportive of a bill that
is going to discriminate that much between State universities. In fact,
if the McCain legislation were to pass, students at Alabama and Auburn
would receive an additional $400 and $500 under his bill. It would be
more generous to students in my State under the McCain bill.
I say to my colleagues, I think Senator Webb and others who supported
this legislation are on the right track. It is time for us to improve
the GI bill benefits for our soldiers and their families. We can do
that. We ought to put some money in it. I understand our budget is
tight, but I am prepared to vote some resources to improve this idea.
But I do not believe we should ever consider--please understand--ever
consider setting a policy that would essentially encourage and pay
people through subsidies to leave the military. We ought to create
educational benefit programs that affirm them, affirm their families,
as they make the military a career. That is what our current
involvement is.
Before I yield the floor, I will say that is why I have chosen to not
support the Webb approach and have chosen to support the McCain
approach. I think it is preferable.
I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, we have tried very hard. I was here a few
hours ago when the Senate opened, congratulating the Senate for moving
forward on a very important bill for firefighters and police. I guess
my expectations were far too high. I thought we were going to legislate
and finish this bill. It is a bill that is so important.
I had the opportunity after the log had been thrown in the road to
speak with the head of the firefighters union. I don't run from
organized labor. I think it is important that we recognize the good
they do in the country, and no one can dispute the work that
firefighters do. I talked with Mr. Schneeberger and told him I don't
know if we can do this bill; it appears Republicans don't want to do
it. They have offered a mini GI bill of rights. Of course, we have been
delayed. That is very unfortunate.
I hope Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi can work something out to
complete the bill in a very short period of time. We have done about
the best we can.
I spoke with Senator Enzi last night--I don't know what time it was--
4:30, 5 o'clock. I asked if he wanted votes last night. He said no
because he didn't get the work done in committee that he wanted and he
had some work to get done on this bill. I accepted that. I said fine.
I was hoping we would do more today. We tried to get a vote on an
amendment and could not get agreement to get a vote on an amendment. So
at this stage, we are going to see if we can invoke cloture on this
bill. If it doesn't work, it is just another bill the Republicans
brought down.
Mr. President, I said this morning, is it any wonder that three
special elections held for House seats have gone to Democrats in
districts where no one expected a Democrat to win? The reason is
because the American people are seeing what is going on here. They see
what is going on at 16th and Pennsylvania Avenue, and it is down here
now
[[Page S4150]]
where we cannot do anything, nothing. Mr. President, 71 or 72
filibusters. I don't know how many we are at. We are moving up the
road. Is it any wonder that a poll came out yesterday in the Washington
Post saying that the American people believe Democrats in Congress are
21 percent better able to handle the problems of this country than
Republicans? It is no wonder.
In spite of that, in spite of 7 years and almost 5 months for
President Bush, I still would like to work for the next 7 months with
him to try to get things done. I would hope he would pick up the phone
sometime and call down here and maybe help us get Federal aviation
reauthorization done, just as an example. That is fresh in my mind
because that was legislatively killed last week.
Cloture Motion
I send a cloture motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The bill clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Gregg-Kennedy
substitute amendment No. 4751 to H.R. 980, the Public Safety
Employer-Employee Cooperation Act.
Harry Reid, Edward M. Kennedy, Charles E. Schumer, Joseph
R. Biden, Jr., Sherrod Brown, Robert Menendez, John D.
Rockefeller IV, Benjamin L. Cardin, Robert P. Casey,
Jr., Thomas R. Carper, Sheldon Whitehouse, Barbara A.
Mikulski, Blanche L. Lincoln, Amy Klobuchar,
Christopher J. Dodd, Tom Harkin, Richard Durbin.
Cloture Motion
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send another cloture motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The bill clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on H.R. 980, the
Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act.
Harry Reid, Edward M. Kennedy, Charles E. Schumer, Joseph
R. Biden, Jr., Sherrod Brown, Robert Menendez, John D.
Rockefeller, IV, Benjamin L. Cardin, Robert P. Casey,
Jr., Thomas R. Carper, Sheldon Whitehouse, Barbara A.
Mikulski, Blanche L. Lincoln, Amy Klobuchar,
Christopher J. Dodd, Tom Harkin, Richard Durbin.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am here today to speak in support of the
Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007, for which I am
a proud cosponsor. While the vast majority of private and public
employees enjoy the right to bargain collectively, thousands of our
public safety employees across the country are denied this basic
American right. If enacted, this bill would provide our public safety
workers with the right to negotiate for the level of pay and benefits
they deserve.
Every day, we rely on the service of these men and women, who risk
their lives to provide safety and protection to our communities. Yet
many States and local governments deny these workers the right to
organize. It is not fair, and it should not be tolerated.
Those who oppose providing public safety employees these fundamental
rights claim that the legislation will interfere with existing State
and local laws that govern collective bargaining. This is simply false.
The legislation ensures that existing collective bargaining units and
agreements that have already been issued, approved, or ratified at the
State or local level would be maintained. Additionally, this
legislation prohibits strikes and work slowdowns by public safety
officers and labor unions, as well as lockouts by public safety
employers, ensuring that the safety of the public will not be
compromised as a result of a work stoppage.
This legislation enjoys broad bipartisan support. Introduced by
Senators Kennedy and Gregg, there are 34 cosponsors, including 11
Republicans. The House version of the bill passed by a vote of 314 to
97, supported by a majority in both parties.
It took a national tragedy in the form of the terrorist attacks of 9/
11 to remind us all of the critical role public safety officers play in
our lives. Hundreds gave their lives that day, and hundreds more give
their life in service each year, to ensure our safety and to protect us
from danger. It is inexcusable that workers so dedicated to keeping
America safe should be denied the basic and fundamental right to
organize.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and to stop denying
our firefighters, our police, and all of our first responders the right
to organize.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--H.R. 2419
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want to shift gears now and express my
appreciation to lots of different people.
I mentioned briefly this morning my congratulations to Senator
Harkin, Senator Chambliss, Senator Baucus, and Senator Grassley, but
there are other team members who worked so hard to get this most
important bill done, the most important bill being the farm bill.
We only do a farm bill every 5 years. There are some who say it took
us 5 years to get this bill done. That is really not the case, but we
worked on it for a long time, worked very hard.
I mentioned in my caucus yesterday that this was an example of how we
should legislate because we had conferences. We have been kind of
getting out of the habit of having a public conference where Democrats
and Republicans are appointed and sit down and try to work out the
differences on a bill. That is what they did here. I think it was
exemplary legislative work.
Was there any side that was more right than the other side? No. But
they worked together to come up with a fine piece of legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to the
conference report to accompany H.R. 2419, the farm bill, and during
today's session there be 5 hours of debate--remember, this farm bill
deals with food, it deals with energy, and it deals with security--with
the time equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their
designees; and when the Senate resumes the conference report tomorrow
there be an additional 90 minutes of debate divided in the same manner;
further, that if any motions to waive are made in response to points of
order, then these votes occur in the order in which they were made
prior to the vote on adoption of the conference report on Thursday;
that on Thursday, upon the yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to
vote on adoption of the conference report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. ENZI. Reserving the right to object, until I get 5 minutes to
rebut a little bit of what the leader said about the collective
bargaining bill. I do not need much time, but I was cut out of the
process earlier today and I deserve the opportunity.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, my friend can have all the time he wants--10
minutes?
Mr. ENZI. Ten will be plenty. I appreciate it.
Mr. REID. How about doing this then? We will go ahead and have this
approved, and you do 10 minutes or however much time you want?
Mr. ENZI. That would be part of the unanimous consent? Do I
understand that under the unanimous consent I would get my 10 minutes
before the farm bill.
Mr. REID. You would get it as soon as the consent is granted--right
now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, before my friend starts, I have said
publicly, I have told him privately--we do not have a Senator, Democrat
or Republican, who is easier to get along with and who is a better
legislator than Mike Enzi. He is a very fine man, and I am sorry he was
cut off.
There will also be no more votes today as a result of this unanimous-
consent agreement.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I appreciate the leader's kind remarks. I
have been diligently working on the collective bargaining bill. It is
an important part of the process to get the full debate out. We are
being precluded from that process now.
We have had three amendments brought up. None of those were mine. I
have five amendments that I would like to have debated that address
what
[[Page S4151]]
I see as serious flaws in the bill, but I am being precluded from even
bringing up one of those. I was given the offer, take it or leave it,
that there could be two Republican amendments, period, and I could
decide from among my own and others which would be the two.
As I pointed out at the very beginning of this bill, this bill is
flawed. It did not go to committee. This happens every time a bill does
not go to committee. We have a process with bills before the committee
where people can sit down and look at amendments and revise the
amendments until there is agreement between the two sides. That is the
only reason that a committee such as Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions can get bills done.
We often take a look at all of the amendments when they are in
committee and decide that we will work on those before they go to the
floor. Otherwise, as contentious a committee as we have, which handles
the volume of work it does, we would get nothing done. But we get a lot
done. In fact, last week when we were at the signing with the President
of one of the bills we passed, the President said: You know, you are
the only committee sending us any bills. It is because we go through
the whole process.
Usually Senator Kennedy and I sit down, we list our principles, we
agree on the principles, we plug in some details, and then we talk with
the stakeholders. That is everybody with an interest in it. Usually at
that point there is someone who says: No, we have one provision we have
worked on for 12 years, and we never have gotten that provision. And
until we get that provision, we don't care about the rest of the bill.
Whoever's constituent it is, Senator Kennedy or I, we take the lead on
it and say: You know, you have been asking for it for 12 years and you
got nothing. How would you like to get the other 80 percent that you
also claim you like? That is the way we do bills. It is working to get
common ground, which is a third way.
There are so many issues around here that have been polarized, so the
second they come up people jump into the weeds. They talk about a
little glitch here or there that irritated people in the past and that
gets us nowhere. So we have been able to elevate that to coming up with
a third way to achieve the same thing, the same principles we agreed
on.
This bill didn't go through any of that process. We just slammed
right over here to the floor of the Senate and then they are surprised
at the result, that we want to do a few amendments. I saw the House
bill, and then I saw the negotiations with some of the Senate people
from our side on some amendments that they thought were critical. A lot
of those didn't get in at all, even though I think a few of them
thought they were in there. They are not in there. That is what I am
bringing up--what were good ideas that ought to be contained in this
kind of a bill so the rhetoric we have had so far actually winds up
meeting what is in the bill.
That is our job. It is really supposed to come out doing what we said
it would do. This bill does not do what the chairman said it would do.
This bill doesn't say what the Republican cosponsors said it would do.
It could be clarified. It is not easy to clarify it when we are out on
the Senate floor. It is difficult to do out here because it is more of
a take it or leave it. In fact, that is what I was offered: take it or
leave it on getting two amendments. What kind of a choice is that? I
have five germane amendments and many other germane amendments have
also been filed and offered. But, of course, I will have to get
unanimous consent to bring up my amendments later if at all. Unanimous
consent is not the easiest thing to get around here, particularly when
it starts getting into this little friction area.
I want to comment on the 71 filibusters. I suspect the two motions
that were just filed count as two more filibusters. What they are is
two more attempts to protect the rights of the minority. We have a
right, just as that side did when they were in the minority, to bring
up amendments. They protected their right, and we are protecting our
right.
You heard one of the cosponsors of the collective bargaining bill
make those same comments earlier today when the big discussion happened
on the amendment that was put on the other side of the tree. He voted
not to table that because he respects the rights of the minority. That
is what has always had to happen around here.
I have to tell you, on filibusters, one of the reasons we get
filibusters is because there is still a Presidential campaign going on
on one side of the aisle, and that means two of our Members are not
here except in unusual circumstances. So the way it has to happen is,
on Monday when we come in we vote on a cloture motion. It is not
legislation that necessarily needs a cloture motion because a lot of
those have been passed 98 to 0, 96 to 0, maybe 95 to 1. That is nowhere
near a filibuster. But that allows us--that forces us into a situation
where, for the next 30 hours, we debate whether to debate. That way, by
Wednesday the candidates can show up so there is enough of a vote to
agree to some of the amendments that go on there. So part of it is a
tactical procedure being used by the majority, who still has a primary
going on in their Presidential race, to assure they will have the votes
there when the time comes.
You can see this is 51 to 49, so if two people don't show up on that
side, it is 49 to 49 and that gives the Vice President a chance to
vote. So far he has always voted with me. So that gives the minority a
win, and I understand that.
But I do not stand for being blamed for all of those cloture motions
that have been put out here. Some of those have been to protect the
majority as a majority. They need to take credit for those instead of
blaming us for it.
This is a kind of do-nothing Congress. If it were not for bills
coming out of this committee there wouldn't be a lot of bills passing
out here, but a lot of the failed bills come from skipping the process
and coming right to the floor, like the immigration bill. The way to
get things done is take them through committee and then we don't need
to do as many amendments on the Senate floor.
In fact, if you check back on the bills Senator Kennedy and I worked
on, it is very unusual for us to have an amendment on the floor. And
they usually pass unanimously here and in the House. That is how they
get to the President. There is not a conference committee involved in
it. We have already preconferenced with the House and found out what
their potential objections were with the House and worked it out. But
not on this bill. On this bill what we said--not we said; they said--
you know, the policemen and the firemen are going to be in DC for this
big memorial event this week. We ought to time it so we can really put
the crush on the Republicans.
I have to give you congratulations for that. It would not be enough
just to recognize the tremendous sacrifices these people make and the
difficult jobs they have. No, we can make some points against the
Republicans because they may want to make sure Government still works
when we are done with the process.
There are a lot of people commenting that there are some problems
with this bill. The mayor of New York City--that is a State that
requires collective bargaining--sent us a letter that said: Don't pass
this bill. This will affect the way that we do business. It is not a
one-sided thing, but I tell you, when it gets one-sided, nothing
happens and that is kind of the process we are in.
I am going to be asking people to vote with me against the cloture
motion because I have not been able to bring up my amendments. I
haven't been able to get votes on the other side.
That has an interesting little twist to it too. We have four
amendments: three that are germane--those are the three the Republicans
put in, which means they relate to the bill--and one offered by Senator
Leahy that is actually a reauthorization bill on some grant money. It
doesn't relate to this bill, but I am willing to have votes on all four
of them. I am willing to accept the Leahy amendment and get it done.
But there will be objections to that because he chairs the committee
that handles judges, and we were promised three circuit court judges
before Memorial Day. As I understand it, tomorrow morning there is a
markup around here that does not have a single circuit court judge on
it, which means that deadline cannot be met.
So, again, protecting minority rights, there are some people on the
[[Page S4152]]
Republican side who are saying if they are not going to follow their
word, we are not going to follow--The Senator from Vermont then says:
If they are not going to take my amendment, then I am not going to
allow the other three to be voted on. That happened earlier today.
There is plenty of blame to go around. But to stick it on any one
party is the wrong thing to do. And to proclaim that we really want to
have this bill done without taking it through the regular process is a
misnomer--and I need to have my rights--and I appreciate this time to
speak. The majority leader was very kind in that. I appreciate the way
he let us at least work for a day, an interrupted day and a partial day
at that, before the cloture motion went into effect.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
____________________