National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006--Continued
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006--Continued -- (Senate - July 25, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. GRAHAM. Absolutely.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator from South Carolina, the amendments which you have offered and were cosponsoring with Senator McCain, Senator Warner, and others, do they make it clear that the policy of the United States is not to engage in cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of any prisoner in our control?
Mr. GRAHAM. It becomes a statute----
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I can answer that. If you look at the second McCain amendment, basically that amendment is directed at that question. That is my understanding.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes for the Senator from South Carolina or Virginia-whoever wants the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Florida for his patience, too.
If I can ask either Senator-both served in the military, and the Senator from South Carolina in the Judge Advocate General Corps-it strikes me this is an important thing for our troops, to give them clarity, in terms of policy. I would ask the Senator from South Carolina if, in his visits to Guantanamo or visits with other military personnel, he has found that sentiment.
Mr. GRAHAM. This is absolutely giving clarity. What had been confusing will now be clear, and it will be protection for the troops who are having to administer the detainees, in terms of interrogation. That is what Senator Warner said, in terms of detention.
The Marine Corps Judge Advocate, who was part of a review process 2 years ago, said the one thing he thought policymakers were missing, or misunderstood, was the effect on our own troops. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, it is a crime to abuse a detainee. So you are creating a new model for interrogation, and you may be getting your own people in trouble if you don't understand how the law exists already.
We are trying to reconcile those concepts; let the military tell us what they need and not put our own people at jeopardy. This will help GTMO in two regards: Get better, more reliable information that will not give us a black eye and help the troops understand what their duties are.
Mr. DURBIN. I say in closing to the Senator from South Carolina, I thank him for his leadership, along with Senators WARNER and MCCAIN. I know better than most in this Chamber this is a very delicate issue, and I think they have handed it in a positive way, with clarity along the lines we are drawing, so we protect America and protect our troops and give them clear guidance in terms of conduct that is acceptable and up to American's standard of value. I thank the Senator for his leadership.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I yield.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to Senator Nelson's amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Florida-to make sure I understand exactly what he is saying-here is a person in service to our country who was killed in combat. If that soldier had basically bought an insurance policy on his life, then the amount of money his family would receive from our Government is going to be reduced by the amount he would have received from that insurance policy? Is that, in shorthand, the way to describe the current law?
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Let me tweak it a little bit for the Senator, and I thank the Senator for the compassion coming out of his heart and expressed on his face as he asks this question. This Senator from Illinois is right on.
In the first place, in current law the soldier does not actually have to make an affirmative purchase. Under current law we enroll the survivors of any service member who is killed in the Survivors Benefit Plan. However, for a private, a corporal, a sergeant, that is not a lot because of their base pay.
Mr. DURBIN. I might ask the Senator from Florida, through the Chair, so the benefit the soldier receives depends on rank and salary?
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Under the Survivors Benefit Plan it does. However, there is another part of the law that says survivors shall receive a second benefit, Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, to attempt in one small way to make those survivors whole for all the sacrifice their loved one has given.
But, no, because of a problem with the current law, they cannot get both. One offsets the other, the long and short of which is that a young widow of a private or corporal or sergeant can't make it with what the U.S. Government is going to give her unless we rectify this inequity in the law.
Mr. DURBIN. Does the Senator have remaining time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is expired.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Florida be recognized for an additional 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator from Florida this specific question. We are about to consider whether we are going to shut down debate on this bill. It is called cloture. It closes down the debate on the bill, limits the amendments to the bill. As to the Senator's amendment, which protects these widows and surviving children of a soldier killed in combat, once we have closed down debate and limited amendments, would we still be able to vote on the Nelson amendment?
Mr. NELSON of Florida. The Senator asked a good question.
I ask the Presiding Officer, would the Nelson amendment, with its 22 cosponsors, be considered germane following a successful cloture motion?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is insufficient information at this point to be able to make that determination.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. So the answer, I say to the Senator from Illinois, it could well be knocked off if cloture is brought on this Defense authorization bill.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask through the Chair one last question. How often do we have an opportunity to change the law and to help these soldiers and their families? How many times do we get a chance in the Senate during the course of the year to consider the Department of Defense authorization bill or another bill that might give us a chance to help those families and to rectify this injustice which the Senator from Florida has pointed out and which I think every Member on both sides of the aisle would like to change?
Mr. NELSON of Florida. The Senator from Florida will ask for the yeas and nays.
If the chairman of the committee, the distinguished Senator from Virginia, is persuasive in talking to the Republican majority leader not to bring the motion for cloture to cut off debate so that amendments like this to help widows and orphans might fall, maybe we can get it to a vote. It is the least we can do for Americans who have given their lives, or their best years, in defense of our country. We simply cannot allow this situation to continue. We need to restore fair benefits to these folks. I am going to continue my fight for these people who have given their all to their Nation and especially to the loved ones whom they have left behind.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to our good friend and colleague, we will take under consideration the Senator's amendment with great care.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to address to the chairman the following. I have two pending amendments which I would like to call up. I will do this briefly.
Mr. WARNER. Please proceed.
AMENDMENT NO. 1428
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside for the purpose of calling up amendment No. 1428.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Illinois [Mr. DURBIN] proposes an amendment numbered 1428.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, and to the chairman and ranking member of the committee, I hope this is an amendment which will be accepted because it is noncontroversial and important to my State and to the protection of our country.
The amendment authorizes the Secretary of the Air Force to enter into agreements with local county officials for the construction and lease of joint administration and operation facilities needed at Scott Air Force Base, currently operating under a joint use agreement with MidAmerica Airport, to accommodate new missions.
The fiscal year 05 Defense Appropriations conference report included $259 million to procure three C-40C aircraft to be based at Scott Air Force Base and flown by the 932nd Airlift Wing with the 375th Air Wing as an active associate, move three C-9C aircraft from Andrews Air Force Base to Scott AFB, and to support these new and expanded missions.
The expanded C-9 mission and new C-40 mission will strain existing TRANSCOM and TACC facilities and require additional administrative and operations space/structures.
Due to the accelerated funding schedule of the C-9 and C-40 missions, immediate administrative and operations space is needed.
St. Clair County, IL, the appropriate local unit of Government, has offered to enter into an agreement with the Air Force to construct the necessary facilities, saving our Department of Defense some money. These structures would be for joint military-civilian use. Currently, Scott AFB and MidAmerica Airport operate on a joint use plan. St. Clair County is a partner in MidAmerica Airport.
The Air Force has estimated the cost of a new facility for TRANSCOM and HQ TACC is about $60 million.
This general provision is needed in order for the Air Force and St. Clair County to enter into an agreement on joint use facilities. The construction would be at no cost to the Air Force. The county would invite the Air Force to lease space in the buildings, consistent with military lease requirements.
If the chairman has not had a chance to review this amendment, I would like to ask his staff to take a look at it. It is no expense to the Government and it provides a necessary facility at a very important airbase.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
AMENDMENT NO. 1571
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask that amendment be set aside and we call up amendment No. 1571.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this amendment is not new to this Senate. We have considered it several times and passed it. It has not survived conference committees, but I hope this time it will be successful, we will be successful in our effort in passing it. It is the reservist pay amendment.
Here is what is going on in America: All across America members of Guard units and Reserve units are being activated, called into service for our country, risking their lives, spending lengthy periods of time away from their families. We understand these new assignments create a lot of personal hardship and sacrifice on the part of these soldiers and marines, sailors, airmen, members of the Coast Guard, and others. We also understand it creates much financial hardship on some as well.
So we, as a nation, encourage the employers of Guard and Reserve members to try to stand by the men and women who are serving our country, even when they have been activated. It turns out that well over 1,000 employers across America have said: We will do just that. They continue to make up the difference in pay for these activated members of the Guard and Reserve. We salute them. We thank them. They are bringing financial peace of mind to men and women who are serving our country every day, separated from their homes and their families.
Now, the concern I have is the fact that one of the largest employers in America is not doing the same thing, and that is the Federal Government. The Federal Government is not making up the difference in pay for those members of the Guard and Reserve who are activated. Some of them face quite a setback when they are activated and receive less money and a lot of financial hardship.
Last year, when we debated this amendment, the Government Accountability Office told us that about 40 percent of Guardsmen and Reservists lose some amount of income when mobilized. Well, I want to report to the Senate that figure has now been updated. The new figure is 51 percent. More than half of the men and women activated in the Guard and Reserve lose income because of that activation, causing financial hardship and economic difficulties for some. Over 11 percent of those activated lose more than $2,500.
We also find that income loss is one of the top reasons given by Guardsmen and Reservists as to why they stop serving in Reserve components. We need to actively recruit and retain the very best to serve in America's military. And when you ask those currently serving why they are not reupping, why they are not reenlisting, many of them give as a major reason-one of the top reasons-the loss of income when they are activated to serve from Reserve units.
We want to make certain that we salute the employers across America who are dealing with these troops and helping them. But I think we have an obligation, those of us who work here in Washington, to make sure our Government does the same.
Roughly 1 out of every 10 Guardsmen and Reservists in service to our country is also a Federal employee. How can we on the one hand say to private employers, and even State governments, "We salute you for your foresight and compassion in helping our troops" and not do the same? I think we ought to be standing by those Federal employees who are activated in the service to our country as well. We should not be lagging behind those who have made real contributions and have shown this leadership. We should be setting an example.
This measure does not bust the budget. It results in some expenditures, but the money to make up any lost income by mobilized Federal workers is drawn from funds already previously appropriated. Secondly, it is not additional pay for military service. Reservists continue to receive the same military pay for the same military job. Any differential pay they receive is separate and apart, simply intended to keep such employees financially whole while serving our country.
I do not believe our service men and women sit down and ask those serving with them, "Do you have a supplement in pay coming in here?" and resent it if some do and some do not. Why, then, would we put Federal employees in this unfortunate situation? The wisdom of this amendment is it is readily understandable by the entire force, whether Active Duty or Reserve. They know that private-sector companies are making whole these employees' pay, and they can certainly understand it if the Federal Government did the same.
I think we ought to be sensitive to the fact that if we do not make up the difference in regular civilian income, it could create great hardship, concern, worry, stress, and anxiety on troops that we want in the field with a positive attitude doing their job and coming home safely.
The reason to support this measure is simple: The Federal Government cannot continue to do less for its employees than other major employers. It is time for the Government to be as generous, as caring, as compassionate as Sears, Roebuck, IBM, Home Depot, General Motors, and 24 State governments that stand behind their soldiers once they are activated to serve our country.
How can we commend everyone else and not do our part? We can adopt this amendment. I invite all of my colleagues to come together once more to adopt the Reservist Pay Security Act.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov