[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 8960-8983]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 8961]]

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 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

[[Page 8962]]

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 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

[[Page 8963]]

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. 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

[[Page 8964]]

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 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.

[[Page 8965]]

  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.


                           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

[[Page 8966]]

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, 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

[[Page 8967]]

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 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.

[[Page 8968]]

  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

                                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

[[Page 8969]]

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.
  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

[[Page 8970]]

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.
  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

[[Page 8971]]

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).
       ``(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

[[Page 8972]]

     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.
  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

[[Page 8973]]

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. 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

[[Page 8974]]

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.
  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

[[Page 8975]]

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.
  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.

[[Page 8976]]

  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 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?

[[Page 8977]]

  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.
  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

[[Page 8978]]

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 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

[[Page 8979]]

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 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

[[Page 8980]]

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 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

[[Page 8981]]

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

[[Page 8982]]

like to have debated that address what 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

[[Page 8983]]

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 
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.

                          ____________________