[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 21700-21705]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




       DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006--Continued

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, there have been so many legislative 
fellows and interns requesting to have seats on the floor, I am not 
sure there will be room for any regular staff soon. So I am going to 
start refusing to agree to floor privileges unless we are sure that 
there is going to be space for those staff who are assigned to work 
with members of the committee on this bill.
  It is our hope we will be able to get to a vote on the Harkin 
amendment soon. I want to make a short statement, and that is, we have 
had some information from the Department of Defense.
  May we go back on the bill now? We are back on the bill 
automatically?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. I call the attention of my colleagues to the fact that 
the money for Iraq and Afghanistan is in a reserve account in this bill 
and, theoretically, it should have started being available this 
Saturday. It will only be available when this bill is signed into law 
by the President.
  Sometime during the first quarter, operating accounts for day-to-day 
operation costs--operation and maintenance for the Army, for the Marine 
Corps, and for the training efforts of Iraqis--are in the reserve 
account and will not be available. It is imperative we get this bill to 
the President so it can be signed to make the money available by the 
middle of November.
  Increased fuel costs are putting pressure on operating accounts. We 
all know what it costs us when we pull up to a gas station and fill up 
a tank. It costs just as much or more to fill up the tanks in Iraq and 
Afghanistan for those people who are in the air and on the ground. That 
money is not going to be available unless we approve this bill.
  One of the things that bothers me is that there is money in this bill 
to finance continued production of the C-130Js. That production 
contract is planned for mid-November, but there is no money available 
now. It will not be available until the 2006 bill is signed. There are 
a whole series of things in this bill that are designed to take the 
pressure off of the way the funding is being carried out at the 
Department of Defense. The ability to finance the improvised explosive 
device task force initiatives will be constrained unless that $50 
billion portion of this bill is passed.
  So I urge the Senate to help us get this bill through as quickly as 
possible. I know that is sort of difficult now with the recesses that 
are coming up, but very clearly we are starting to get amendments that 
are not germane to this bill, and I hope that will not go on.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I and the Senator from Hawaii join in 
asking the clerks in both cloakrooms that they would send out a notice 
that we intend to move for third reading if there is no amendment 
presented within an hour.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I discussed this with the distinguished 
floor managers.
  First, parliamentary inquiry: Is the Harkin amendment now the pending 
business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the pending question.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to set 
aside that amendment so the distinguished Senator from Missouri and I 
could offer an amendment, and that upon the completion of action or the 
setting aside, whichever transpires first, it be in order to return to 
the Harkin amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1901

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy], for himself and Mr. 
     Bond, proposes an amendment numbered 1901.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To appropriate $1,300,000,000 for Additional War-Related 
 Appropriations for National Guard and Reserve Equipment for homeland 
           security and homeland security response equipment)

       On page 228, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:

                  National Guard and Reserve Equipment

       For an additional amount for ``National Guard and Reserve 
     Equipment'', $1,300,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That the amount available under this 
     heading shall be available for homeland security and homeland 
     security response equipment; Provided further, That the 
     amount provided under this heading is designated as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of the 
     conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 (108th 
     Congress).

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, so Members will know, this amendment adds 
$1.3 billion in emergency funding for National Guard equipment to the 
supplemental portion of the fiscal year 2006 Defense appropriations 
bill. The funding is set aside for the National Guard to buy much 
needed items for homeland security and natural disaster response.
  Hurricane Katrina exposed glaring deficiencies in the equipment 
available for the National Guard to respond to such disasters. After 
Hurricane Katrina, we had barely sufficient levels of trucks, tractors, 
communication, and miscellaneous equipment that is necessary to respond 
to the overwhelming scale of this storm. If we have another hurricane 
or, God forbid, a large-scale terrorist attack, our National Guard is 
not going to have the basic level of resources to do the job right.
  As we know, in every one of our 50 States, we have seen in our career 
times where the National Guard was called upon to help. The National 
Guard Chief, LTG Steven Blum, recently noted that the Guard has only 
about 35 percent of what is officially required to respond to 
hurricanes, natural disasters, or possible terrorist attacks at home.
  Yesterday, in an appearance in the House of Representatives, General 
Blum noted that Guard members responded to this disaster with 
insufficient and outdated communications. General Blum noted we are 
going to need at least--a staggering amount--$7 billion to procure the 
communications, trucks, medical supplies, and machinery necessary to 
respond to future disasters.
  We knew, even before that hearing, that without any doubt there is an 
immediate need for at least $1.3 billion. We have to procure essential 
equipment such as a family of medium tractor vehicles, new SINCGARS 
radios, night-vision goggles, and other equipment.
  I ask unanimous consent that a recent report from the National Guard 
on these critical needs be printed in the Record.

[[Page 21701]]



                           Executive Summary

       National Guard units that deployed to combat since 
     September 11th have been the best trained and equipped force 
     in American History. $4.3 billion has been invested to 
     provide those units with the very best, state-of-the-art 
     equipment available in the world today.
       This is an unprecedented demonstration of the DoD 
     commitment to ensure that no soldier or aiman, regardless of 
     component (Active, Guard, or Reserve), goes to war ill-
     equipped or untrained. With the help of the US Congress, this 
     was accomplished over a two-year period. It is a reality for 
     National Guard overseas combat deployments.
       Now, the senior leadership of the DoD is extending the same 
     level of commitment to the National Guard, the nation's first 
     military responders in time of domestic need.
       The DoD has a comprehensive reset plan that recognizes the 
     National Guard's critical role in Homeland Defense and 
     support to Homeland Security operations. This will take time 
     and resources. I am confident that a real sense of urgency 
     exists to make this a reality for America.
       Communications equipment, tactical vehicles and trucks and 
     engineer equipment are the National Guard's highest equipment 
     priorities.
                                         H. Steven Blum, LTG, USA,
                                     Chief, National Guard Bureau.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we got into this situation for two reasons:
  First, unfortunately, with all the other needs of this country, we 
have traditionally underfunded the National Guard's equipment level. 
Second, much of the equipment the Guard does have is being used in the 
ongoing war effort in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in our needs across the 
Middle East and Central Asia. We all know there is no prospect that we 
are going to see it again back in the United States any time soon.
  The distinguished senior Senator from Missouri, Senator Bond, and I 
cochair the Senate National Guard Caucus. On September 13, the two of 
us wrote the President to urge that the administration deal with this 
problem immediately. We want to demonstrate by our letter that this is 
not a partisan issue, it is a national issue.
  We asked the President include the $1.3 billion in the next 
supplemental spending bill to deal with Hurricane Katrina. But we can't 
wait for the President to request the funding. We have to act now. The 
date this next supplemental spending bill will be submitted is still 
uncertain. We don't know when it is going to be submitted. But with 
this Defense appropriations bill, we have billions of dollars in 
emergency funding. Much of that emergency funding, rightly so, will go 
toward ensuring that our men and women abroad have the right tools to 
do their jobs. We should do that. But it is just as reasonable and 
necessary that we add emergency funding to deal with the equipment 
needs of our troops at home.
  Certainly in the last couple of months, we have seen probably at no 
other time how much that equipment is needed, and we know there will be 
other occasions.
  I praise Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye for including so much 
equipment money for the Guard in supplemental baseline bills. While 
most of that new equipment will go toward the Guard's overseas 
warfighting needs, our Guard and Reserve have a greater percentage and 
a greater activity than at any time in decades, and they need the help. 
The funding we are now asking for takes a big step forward.
  I have worked with them closely. Of course, I want to see the 
amendment accepted. I will, of course, ask for a vote, if we can't 
reach such agreement.
  I know the distinguished Senator from Alaska and the distinguished 
Senator from Hawaii have spent even more years in this body than I 
have, and they worked closely to help our National Guard. Senator Bond 
and I have done our best to fashion a reasonable and necessary piece of 
legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to join wholeheartedly my 
National Guard Caucus cochairman, the distinguished Senator from 
Vermont, in urging the Senate to adopt these emergency appropriations 
for our National Guard.
  We have had a lot of talk about emergency responders and people 
wondered, Did this group do their job? Did that group do their job? As 
Governor of Missouri for 8 years, I saw the National Guard respond, and 
respond fully, to every natural disaster we had. We had floods, we had 
tornadoes, we had some other civil disorders, and the Guard responded. 
They responded with the equipment they needed.
  Since that time, I have served in the Senate as cochairman of the 
National Guard. I have seen the Guard continue to respond to State 
emergencies time after time after time. When they have been called upon 
to go abroad as part of the national defense mission, they have done so 
extremely well.
  Unfortunately, the men and women of the National Guard, those vital 
citizen soldiers who volunteer to serve their country, have not been 
well resourced. It appears when equipment is available the Pentagon 
obviously takes care, first, of the active. In this situation, we have 
seen a tremendous drain on equipment--not just from emergencies around 
the country but from the National Guard's participation and 
contribution of equipment to our overseas mission. As a result, the 
equipment readiness in critical areas of the National Guard has fallen 
to about 34 percent. We are asking the men and women of the Guard to go 
into situations--whether they be overseas military situations or a 
vital rescue mission such as New Orleans--without the equipment.
  Our Guard, along with others, responded and responded promptly to the 
disaster of the gulf coast. They were in Louisiana. They went proudly. 
We sent an engineer battalion from Jefferson Barracks in Missouri. They 
went down there, and they performed admirably. They had one set of 
trucks, one set of communications equipment, and one set of night 
vision goggles. The need was great, and they asked for a second of the 
National Guard engineering units to be deployed. We had to refuse, not 
because we did not have the personnel ready--we did not have the 
trucks, we did not have the communication equipment. We absolutely 
could not respond in that situation because of a lack of equipment.
  When we read the stories about the National Guard's participation, 
one gets a better understanding of how effective and how responsive the 
National Guard is.
  As the Senator from Vermont said, we have requested that an emergency 
appropriation be added to the supplemental. I join with him today in 
asking the Senate to approve as an emergency appropriations measure the 
money we need. This money is critically important. It includes trucks. 
The big trucks the National Guard has can drive through flood areas. 
They can rescue people. They can also go in war zones. They need night 
vision goggles. You may think night vision goggles are necessary 
primarily in war. Think about going into New Orleans, which has lost 
all of its power, all of its lighting, and you are trying to find 
people who are in grave personal danger because of the rising 
floodwaters. You need the night vision goggles to see them. Most 
importantly, think about communications. How do they work with other 
units, other Federal units, other State units, when they are on a civil 
mission? When they are under control of the local officials who have 
the responsibility, who have the local command, how do they communicate 
with them? They cannot in too many instances.
  That is why this particular appropriation is so important that we 
begin resourcing our Guard. We can all be very proud of the Guard in 
our States. We do not have every Member of the Senate as a member of 
the National Guard Caucus, but I have not found a Member of this Senate 
who is not extremely proud of his or her National Guard. They know when 
the chips are down, when lives are in danger, the Guard can and will 
respond. The Guard comes to our defense regularly. The very least we 
can do is make sure we support the Guard when they go in. Not giving 
them the equipment they need is not an answer. We are not going to send 
them into harm's way without the equipment to do their job.
  This is an important amendment. This is a large sum. We, obviously, 
are very much aware of the needs. This is a pressing need, and the 
emergencies

[[Page 21702]]

and the wartime situation we are in compel a response to the needs of 
the Guard.
  I thank my colleague from Vermont for offering this, and I urge my 
colleagues to join in seeing that the National Guard gets the 
appropriation resources they need. I thank the managers of the bill.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the distinguished Senator from Missouri. I was 
going to suggest that if the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from 
Hawaii want to accept the amendment, we could actually get some 
significant business done right here.
  While they are thinking about this, I must say there are few people 
in this Senate more senior than I, but certainly the Senator from 
Hawaii is much more senior, the Senator from Alaska is much more 
senior. They are only two of five people senior to me, and they want a 
quorum.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, one of the minor procedural problems we have 
around here with an emergency clause is this has to go through several 
layers of clearance. It is not a higher pay grade, it is a different 
pay grade, it is a different responsibility. The distinguished floor 
managers are working on that. We have the budget committees and others 
who have to act on it.
  I appreciate very much the work of Chairman Stevens and Senator 
Inouye. I hope we will be able to resolve this very shortly. We have 
two of the best leaders in the Senate handling this bill. Whatever 
needs to be done I assure my colleagues will be done.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, is the Harkin amendment the pending 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Leahy amendment is pending.


                           Amendment No. 1886

  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent the Leahy amendment be set aside 
and the Harkin amendment be brought before the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. We have had some conversations about this amendment. It 
is an amendment that raises the subject of the way the Government is 
going to approach the great problems associated with Asian flu. Under 
the circumstances, it has been my recommendation that we take this 
amendment to conference because then the subject will be in this bill. 
If the agencies involved can come together with an appropriate plan and 
request for money, we would then be able to do this in conference.
  Although I have had some question about this amendment, we have 
discussed this now with the author of the amendment. As I indicated to 
him, if it would pass, I would cosponsor, and I ask that my name be 
added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Iowa.
  The amendment (No. 1886) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. The pending amendment is the Leahy amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Leahy amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Is that the Leahy-Bond amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is.
  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I clarify with the desk that I am shown on 
the Leahy amendment; it is the Leahy-Bond amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is listed as a cosponsor.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair.


                       Nomination Of John Roberts

  Mr. President, while I have the floor, I will reflect a moment on the 
vote we took earlier today. This vote has such weight because of its 
place in our system of government. The Supreme Court is a final voice 
on the extent of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, the 
demarcation of power between the legislative and executive branch of 
Government, and the division of power reserved for the Federal 
Government and the governments of the individual States. As a Member of 
this legislative body and in a former life as a State Governor, I am 
acutely aware of the importance of the lines and the consequences when 
they are broached.
  As a Member of the Senate, I do not welcome decisions overturning 
legislative acts that I support, but I frequently work with my 
colleagues to reject efforts to meddle in State affairs. As a Governor 
attempting to guide my State, I had to labor through many burdens 
placed in our way, the State's way, by an intrusive Federal Government.
  The judicial branch of our Government--most notably the Supreme 
Court--has been designated by the Constitution as the branch to 
maintain these divisions of power and referee the tensions between our 
governments. After observing Judge Roberts during the days of hearings 
before the Committee on the Judiciary, I am convinced the power that 
comes with the vote of a Supreme Court Justice will be in wise and 
capable hands.
  Throughout the strenuous sessions, Judge Roberts' intelligence, 
patience, and temperament were on full display. Judge Roberts made a 
convincing case through words and demeanor that he will approach his 
responsibility with modesty and humility.
  Also, as Judge Roberts repeatedly reminded his inquisitors, he is not 
a politician. I commend him on his willingness to remind my colleagues 
that he was not before Congress to compromise or give hints on how he 
might vote on a hypothetical case in exchange for confirmation votes; 
rather, he confirmed repeatedly that the Constitution will be his guide 
to these questions.
  I suspect that some of my colleagues have come to rely on the 
judiciary to advance changes that have no support in the duly elected 
member of our legislature, State and national; hence, their frustration 
with Judge Roberts.
  Judge Roberts has clearly defined views of the role of the judiciary 
and the role of the legislature, and they do not appear to be blurred. 
As Judge Roberts put it so well:

       If the people who framed our Constitution were jealous of 
     their freedom and liberty, they would not have sat around and 
     said, ``Let's take all the hard issues and give them over to 
     the judges.'' That would have been the farthest thing from 
     their mind.

  As did the Founders, I do not believe State and National legislative 
bodies are incapable of settling tough and contentious issues. I do not 
believe it is benevolent or admirable for judges to remove questions 
from the public realm because they are divisive. Judge Roberts has 
shown the modesty and respect to refrain from that path.
  Judge Roberts also has made it clear he finds no place for reflection 
on the public attitudes and legal documents of foreign lands in the 
consideration of constitutional questions. They do not and should not 
offer any guidance as to the words and the meaning of our own 
Constitution.

[[Page 21703]]

  During his testimony, Judge Roberts displayed a respect for the 
Constitution and the rule of law as the principles that should guide 
him when ruling on a case. His view of the role of the judiciary is 
very consistent with my own.
  Finally, I believe President Bush has executed his duties in a 
responsible manner that will serve our Nation well. He interviewed many 
distinguished and qualified judges and attorneys in the country. He 
consulted with Members of the Senate. After careful and thoughtful 
deliberation, President Bush returned to the Senate the name of John 
Roberts. I am very pleased today that 78 Members of the Senate agreed 
and confirmed him to the Supreme Court.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mrs. Murray are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 6 
minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Alexander are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')


                           Amendment No. 1901

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a 
cosponsor of the Bond-Leahy amendment regarding additional funding for 
the Guard and Reserve.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. This is relative to the extraordinary work that they 
did in Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and the extraordinary work that our 
Guard does throughout the Nation. In fact, as I speak, I am sure they 
are on the ground for this unfolding tragedy in California with the 
fires. I am not able to speak more fully at this time but I wanted to 
register my support for the amendment and will speak later tonight. I 
understand this amendment may be accepted. I thank my colleagues for 
their great support at this time of obvious need. The people of 
Louisiana and the gulf coast are grateful.
  I yield the floor.


                    Amendment No. 1901, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the amendment before the Senate is now 
the Leahy-Bond amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. I have a modification at the desk. I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be so modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
       On page 228, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:

                  National Guard and Reserve Equipment

       For an additional amount for ``National Guard and Reserve 
     Equipment'', $1,300,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That the amount available under this 
     heading shall be available for homeland security and homeland 
     security response equipment; Provided further, That the 
     amount provided under this heading is designated as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of the 
     conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 95 (109th 
     Congress).

  Mr. STEVENS. There was one problem. The number of the Congress has 
been changed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask for consideration of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1901, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 1901), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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. DURBIN. 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. DURBIN. Mr. President, is there a pending amendment before us?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not.


                           Amendment No. 1908

  Mr. DURBIN. I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for himself, Ms. 
     Mikulski, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Salazar, Mrs. Murray, Mr. 
     Lautenberg, Mr. Biden, Mr. Nelson of Florida, and Mr. 
     Bingaman, proposes an amendment numbered 1908.

  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To ensure that a Federal employee who takes leave without pay 
 in order to perform service as a member of the uniformed services or 
member of the National Guard shall continue to receive pay in an amount 
which, when taken together with the pay and allowances such individual 
is receiving for such service, will be no less than the basic pay such 
individual would then be receiving if no interruption in employment had 
                               occurred)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. NONREDUCTION IN PAY WHILE FEDERAL EMPLOYEE IS 
                   PERFORMING ACTIVE SERVICE IN THE UNIFORMED 
                   SERVICES OR NATIONAL GUARD.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Reservists Pay Security Act of 2005''.
       (b) In General.--Subchapter IV of chapter 55 of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 5538. Nonreduction in pay while serving in the 
       uniformed services or National Guard

       ``(a) An employee who is absent from a position of 
     employment with the Federal Government in order to perform 
     active duty in the uniformed services pursuant to a call or 
     order to active duty under a provision of law referred to in 
     section 101(a)(13)(B) of title 10 shall be entitled, while 
     serving on active duty, to receive, for each pay period 
     described in subsection (b), an amount equal to the amount by 
     which--
       ``(1) the amount of basic pay which would otherwise have 
     been payable to such employee for such pay period if such 
     employee's civilian employment with the Government had not 
     been interrupted by that service, exceeds (if at all)
       ``(2) the amount of pay and allowances which (as determined 
     under subsection (d))--
       ``(A) is payable to such employee for that service; and
       ``(B) is allocable to such pay period.
       ``(b)(1) Amounts under this section shall be payable with 
     respect to each pay period (which would otherwise apply if 
     the employee's civilian employment had not been 
     interrupted)--
       ``(A) during which such employee is entitled to 
     reemployment rights under chapter 43 of title 38 with respect 
     to the position from which such employee is absent (as 
     referred to in subsection (a)); and
       ``(B) for which such employee does not otherwise receive 
     basic pay (including by taking any annual, military, or other 
     paid leave) to which such employee is entitled by virtue of 
     such employee's civilian employment with the Government.
       ``(2) For purposes of this section, the period during which 
     an employee is entitled to reemployment rights under chapter 
     43 of title 38--
       ``(A) shall be determined disregarding the provisions of 
     section 4312(d) of title 38; and
       ``(B) shall include any period of time specified in section 
     4312(e) of title 38 within which an employee may report or 
     apply for employment or reemployment following completion of 
     service on active duty to which called or ordered as 
     described in subsection (a).
       ``(c) Any amount payable under this section to an employee 
     shall be paid--
       ``(1) by such employee's employing agency;
       ``(2) from the appropriation or fund which would be used to 
     pay the employee if such employee were in a pay status; and
       ``(3) to the extent practicable, at the same time and in 
     the same manner as would basic pay if such employee's 
     civilian employment had not been interrupted.

[[Page 21704]]

       ``(d) The Office of Personnel Management shall, in 
     consultation with Secretary of Defense, prescribe any 
     regulations necessary to carry out the preceding provisions 
     of this section.
       ``(e)(1) The head of each agency referred to in section 
     2302(a)(2)(C)(ii) shall, in consultation with the Office, 
     prescribe procedures to ensure that the rights under this 
     section apply to the employees of such agency.
       ``(2) The Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration shall, in consultation with the Office, 
     prescribe procedures to ensure that the rights under this 
     section apply to the employees of that agency.
       ``(f) For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) the terms `employee', `Federal Government', and 
     `uniformed services' have the same respective meanings as 
     given them in section 4303 of title 38;
       ``(2) the term `employing agency', as used with respect to 
     an employee entitled to any payments under this section, 
     means the agency or other entity of the Government (including 
     an agency referred to in section 2302(a)(2)(C)(ii)) with 
     respect to which such employee has reemployment rights under 
     chapter 43 of title 38; and
       ``(3) the term `basic pay' includes any amount payable 
     under section 5304.''.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     55 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 5537 the following:

``5538. Nonreduction in pay while serving in the uniformed services or 
              National Guard.''.

       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to pay periods (as described in 
     section 5538(b) of title 5, United States Code, as amended by 
     this section) beginning on or after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this amendment has been offered before and 
agreed to before. Unfortunately, it has not been enacted into law. It 
does very well on the floor of the Senate. It just doesn't do very well 
in conference committee. For some reason, when it gets to a conference 
committee, it is usually removed. I hope this will be an exception 
because I think what we are talking about with this amendment is 
something that most Senators on both sides of the aisle would agree 
with.
  The premise behind this amendment is as follows: If you are willing 
to serve in the Guard or Reserve and if you are willing, when 
activated, to leave your job and your family behind to risk your life 
for America, we should do our best as a nation to stand behind you. 
That is it.
  How do we stand behind the men and women of the Guard and Reserve 
when they are activated to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan? In a variety 
of ways. Communities come forward, churches, friends, community groups 
help the family of a soldier who is overseas. But there is one other 
thing that happens that is as important, if not more. Many times that 
activated Guard or Reserve member faces a cut in pay. They have a good 
job. They have been activated. They have to serve for a year or more. 
They are being paid less during the time they are serving our country. 
So we encourage employers across America to stand behind their 
employees. If your employee is activated, stand behind your employee. 
Make up the difference in their pay.
  It turns out that hundreds of corporations across America have said 
that is the right thing to do. That is the patriotic thing to do. Yes, 
we will stand behind the men and women activated into the Guard and 
Reserve. We will make up the difference in pay so that their families 
back home have financial peace of mind that they can pay the mortgage, 
the utility bills, keep the family together while that soldier is 
risking his life overseas.
  We think so highly of these companies for their patriotism and 
dedication to our soldiers that we have created a Web site at the 
Department of Defense. You can go to it. It is a site that 
congratulates these employers for their devotion and allegiance to our 
troops.
  Unfortunately, there is one employer that refuses to do this. It 
turns out it is the largest single employer of all the Guard and 
Reserve who are being activated. One employer that refuses, despite 
this Web site, despite all these speeches, one employer that refuses to 
stand behind the soldiers who were activated in the Guard and Reserve 
and to make up the difference in pay if they are paid less when they 
are activated than they were paid in civilian life. Who is this 
deadbeat employer that won't listen to these calls for patriotic 
responsibility to the men and women in uniform? What employer in 
America, after all that these soldiers have been through, will not 
stand behind them and make up the difference in pay? That employer is 
the Federal Government of the United States.
  One out of 10 Guard and Reserve serving today are Federal employees. 
The Federal Government refuses to make up the difference in pay for 
those who have had a cut in pay because they are risking their lives 
for America.
  I have offered this amendment time and again. I don't understand why 
it gets killed in conference committee every time I offer it. So many 
Senators come to the floor and say what a great idea it is. Yet when it 
goes to conference committee, it doesn't survive. This amendment brings 
the Federal Government into the 21st century and into line with 
countless other major employers. So many of America's top companies do 
the right thing for members of the National Guard and Reserve. So many 
of these are good patriotic corporate citizens in our private sector. 
But in the public sector, 24 State governments, including my home State 
of Illinois, provides the same income protection for their State 
government workers. Counties do it, cities do it, villages do it at 
great sacrifice, and we thank them for that.
  This amendment simply allows the Federal Government to catch up with 
the times, to match what other major employers are already doing, and 
to provide the same type of income protection for our Federal 
Government civilian employees who also serve in the Guard and Reserve.
  I propose this amendment because it is not clear that a real 
opportunity to offer it will ever come on the Department of Defense 
authorization bill this year.
  The Senate is on record as supporting this measure. We have passed it 
on three previous occasions. Two of those occasions were amendments to 
appropriations bills, such as the one before us.
  This is the same language as reported out of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee last Congress, except this version does not include any 
retroactivity provision. Though I personally support that, this 
amendment doesn't go that far.
  The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that this measure has a 
cost but not a budget score. It is not retroactive. It is prospective 
only and subject to available appropriations. The funds to provide this 
differential pay to these Federal employees in the Guard and Reserve 
can come from funds already appropriated to the agencies for salaries. 
Twenty-four State governments do this. We have letters from those 
States attesting to the fact that the benefit has required no 
additional appropriations.
  Many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have supported this 
measure in the past, and I thank them from the bottom of my heart for 
standing with our men and women in uniform.
  Let me show data which is illustrative of what we are facing.
  Recent data from the Department of Defense's newest ``Status of 
Forces Survey of Reserve Components'' tells us that 51 percent of 
reservists lose income during mobilization, and 11 percent lose more 
than $2,500 per month.
  So in addition to the sacrifice of being separated from their family, 
risking their lives in service to their country, many of them are 
taking substantial cuts in pay.
  The new ``Status of Forces Survey of Reserve Components'' also 
reveals that income loss is one of the top factors cited by National 
Guard and Reserve components as reasons they might choose to stop 
serving in Reserve components. This is not only an injustice that we in 
the Federal Government are not making up the pay differential, it, in 
fact, is one of the reasons some in the Reserve and Guard say they are 
not going to re-up. We cannot retain their good services to our country 
because of the economic sacrifice which that service creates.
  The Department of Defense operates a program called Employer Support 
of Guard and Reserve--ESGR for short--which recognizes and pays tribute 
to

[[Page 21705]]

those patriotic, outstanding employers who go beyond the legal minimum 
job protections in support of their workers who are citizen soldiers. 
ESGR operates this Web site which lists 900 companies, nonprofits, and 
State and local governments which offer this pay differential for 
mobilized workers. Search our Government Web site all you will, but you 
will not find the Federal Government on the list. We do not provide the 
same benefit to these men and women in service to our country as these 
other employers.
  The number of employers providing this type of support to their 
workers in the National Guard and Reserve has grown steadily, and we 
owe them a great debt of gratitude for the love of country and devotion 
to our men and women in uniform, but the Federal Government is still 
not one of those employers.
  I think this measure is long overdue. The Federal Government should 
not be lagging behind major corporations and roughly half of the 
governments of the States of the United States in terms of the quality 
of support for the men and women in the Guard and Reserve.
  We should be a leader, not a follower. We should set the example 
right now with this amendment. We can fix this problem, and we can do 
it quickly.
  Let me briefly make a few points for the minority of my colleagues 
who might continue to have reservations about this concept.
  This measure does not bust the budget. Certainly, it results in some 
expenditures, but the money to make up for any lost income by these 
mobilized Federal workers is drawn from the funds already previously 
appropriated to the same agency the workers were serving in before they 
were activated. The money is already there. State governments that 
provide similar benefits report that they require no additional 
appropriations to meet this responsibility.
  Second, this measure is not additional pay for military service. 
Reservists continue to receive the same military pay for the same 
military job. Any differential pay they receive from their Federal 
civilian employer is separate and apart from that and is simply 
intended to keep such employees financially whole while they are away. 
It is a reflection of the value they provided to their Federal agency 
before they were mobilized and a reflection of the value they will 
provide again when they return.
  The military pay a reservist gets during mobilization is for the 
military role he or she performs and is utterly unchanged by this 
amendment.
  Third, the wisdom of this amendment is readily understandable by the 
entire force, whether Active Duty or Reserve. Some people ask how to 
explain to an Active-Duty soldier or his or her family why a Reserve 
soldier sharing the same foxhole--to use an old colloquialism--
performing the same duties, is allowed to draw both military pay as 
well as the lost portion of their civilian income. This is easy to 
explain and easy to understand.
  Unlike Active component troops, Reserve component troops structure 
their lives and make their financial commitments based on their regular 
civilian income. Their house payments, their car payments, the kids' 
tuition payments--everything in their financial picture is based on the 
income of a civilian life. When that income disappears during 
mobilization and is replaced by lower military income, the family 
suffers a real hardship.
  The Active component family may not suffer that hardship. They 
understood going in what the parameters of their family budgets were. 
Allowing a Federal civilian employer to alleviate this hardship for 
their workers, as many private employers already do, makes clearly 
explainable and understandable sense.
  Soldiers take care of one another. No troop wants to see his buddy 
struggle or suffer problems with their family. Certainly, no Active-
Duty soldier wants that Reserve soldier standing by his side helping 
him to fight this war to be distracted by financial hardship back home.
  Let me tell you who endorses this legislation: the American Legion, 
the National Military Family Association, the Reserve Officers 
Association, the National Guard Association of the United States, and 
the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States.
  The reason to support this measure is simple and straightforward: the 
Federal Government cannot and should not do less for its employees in 
the Guard and Reserve than other major employers in America. It is time 
for the U.S. Government to be an employer which is as supportive of our 
troops as Sears, IBM, Home Depot, General Motors, and 24 State 
governments. They have already passed similar legislation. They have 
already made a commitment to our troops. How can we commend all these 
other employers who go the extra mile to support our troops while we 
fail to do so? Can we hold them up as examples and not be an example 
ourselves? I think the answer is no.
  What we can do is adopt this amendment. I invite all my colleagues to 
come together once more to adopt the Reservist Pay Security Act, and I 
urge my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, when this amendment 
is adopted, for goodness' sake and for the sake of these soldiers, 
don't kill it in conference committee. Stand by these soldiers all the 
way through the process. For years now, these soldiers have been 
shortchanged. It is time for us to make a difference in their lives and 
make a commitment to these great men and women.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). Is there a sufficient second?
  At this moment, there is not a sufficient second.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I withdraw that request and ask for the 
adoption of the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to amendment No. 1908.
  The amendment (No. 1908) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, for the information of Senators, there 
will be no further action on the Defense appropriations bill tonight.

                          ____________________