National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006-Resumed

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006--Resumed

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object, is the Senator from Virginia prepared to discuss the Frist amendment? I am reading it for the first time. There is a section I would like to ask him about.

Mr. WARNER. I am prepared to discuss it.

Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object, I call the attention of the Senator to page 3. If the underlying purpose of this amendment is to allow the Boy Scouts of America, or similar organizations, to have their annual jamboree--which I understand they use military facilities and continue to do so, and I have no objection to that. Could I ask the chairman of this committee to please read with me on page 3, starting with line 16, the paragraph that follows, and ask him if he would explain this to me. As I read it, it says:

No Federal law shall be construed to limit any Federal agency from providing any form of support for a youth organization that would result in that agency providing less support to that youth organization than was provided during the preceding fiscal year.

As I read that, the Appropriations Committee could not appropriate less money for a youth organization next year than they did this year if we pass this permanent law. Is that how the Senator from Virginia reads it?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for raising this question. The distinguished Senator from Michigan discussed it with me earlier. You have read it and you have interpreted it correctly. It is to sustain the level of funding and activities that have been historically provided by the several agencies and departments of the Government heretofore.

Mr. DURBIN. I further ask--I have no objection to the Boy Scouts gathering at a jamboree or using the facilities. I have no objection to the appropriation of money for that purpose. But are we truly saying that you could never, ever reduce the amount of money that was given to them?

Mr. WARNER. I say to my good friend, that is the way the bill reads, and there 60-some cosponsors who, presumably, have addressed that. I brought it to the attention of the staff of the leader a short time ago and indicated this, asking do I have a clear understanding, and the Senator has recited the understanding that I have.

Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator from Illinois yield for a question?

Mr. DURBIN. Yes.

Mr. LEVIN. I read this the same as the Senator from Illinois. It is not just that there be no possibility ever of any agency reducing any funding that goes to the Boy Scouts, which is the purported purpose of this, but it is any youth organization because it says any form of support for a youth organization. That means any youth organization, including the Boy Scouts. As I read this, it would make it impossible for any youth organization, no matter how bad it was managing its books, no matter what there might be in terms of fraud and abuse--we are talking about every single youth organization that gets funding from the Federal Government, no matter what the reduction in the number of members of that youth organization is, you could not reduce, apparently, a grant from a Federal agency to any youth organization. I think that goes way beyond the stated purpose of this amendment, which is to protect the Boy Scouts, which I agree with and understand and support.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I may say to my colleagues, in no way does this bind the Appropriations Committee to exercise such discretion as it may so desire in that level of funding. If it was brought to their attention that there was malfeasance or inappropriate expenditures at some point in any program, they are perfectly within their authority to limit or eliminate the funding altogether.

Mr. LEVIN. My reference was to any Federal agency, which means any grant agency, not just Appropriations, which the Senator from Illinois referred to, but any Federal agency, which means any agency that makes any grant to any youth organization cannot reduce that grant, no matter what the reason is, next year. That is the way I read this. It is so overly broad, it ought to be modified or stricken or something.

I think all of us want to support the Boy Scouts and their jamboree, using the facilities or the support of the Secretary of Defense and the armed services, as they have done before, but this is way broader than that.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this issue was raised and the legal counsel drew this up. I must say, you raise a point, but I am sure if there are any improprieties associated with these programs, the appropriators have full authority to curtail or eliminate the funding.

Mr. DURBIN. If I may say, I know the Senator has a pending unanimous-consent request. I would like to amend that request to allow language to be added to amend this particular section stating that if you have a youth organization that is guilty of wasting or stealing Federal funds, that youth organization is not automatically going to receive the same amount of funds in the next year. That is malfeasance at its worst and a waste of taxpayer dollars. I am sure the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Michigan and I don't want to be party to that.

If I may reserve the right to offer a second-degree amendment to that section, I would be happy to allow the unanimous-consent agreement.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, what I suggest in the parliamentary situation is that I withdraw the unanimous-consent request at this time. In the interval, until we raise the question to vote again, the Senator presumably will engage with the leader's office regarding these concerns. So I withdraw the request at this time rather than amend it.

http://thomas.loc.gov/