National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 -- (Senate - July 26, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. REID. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. DURBIN. I would like to clarify what we face at this moment. If I understand what the minority leader has said to the Senate, we have pending amendments before the Senate on the Department of Defense authorization bill which will not survive, are not likely to survive, cannot even be considered because of this procedural decision by the majority leader, by Senator Frist. And if I understand what the Senator from Nevada has said, he has said that included in the amendments which will fall, will not be considered this week, would be an amendment he wants to offer to help totally disabled veterans, an amendment by Senator Nelson of Florida to provide funds for the widows and orphans of those who die in combat, an amendment by Senator Kerry to provide for housing for 1 year for the family of a soldier who dies in combat, the amendment by Senator Murray to provide childcare for soldiers' families when the soldier is deployed overseas, and my amendment to make up the pay difference for National Guard and Reserve who are activated and lose money from their civilian pay. And if I understand the Senator from Nevada, he is saying these amendments, these five or six I have read, we have been told we won't have time to consider this week.

If I understand the Senator from Nevada, he has said we don't have time to deal with the totally disabled veterans, the widows and orphans of those who fall in combat, and those Guard and Reserve members who are activated, we don't have time for that because we have to move to a bill for the gun lobby, for the National Rifle Association.

If I understand what the Senator from Nevada says, it is more important for us to do our best for the gun lobbyists in their three-piece suits than for the men and women in uniform who are fighting and dying for our country. That seems to me to be the agenda and the priority of the majority leader who has come to the floor today.

Is that my understanding of what the Senator from Nevada has said?

Mr. REID. I say through the Chair to the distinguished

Senator from Illinois, yes. We have been reasonable. I believe there is no jury you could have in the world that would think we are doing other than the right thing, asking for a couple days to improve a bill that will give benefits to 2 ½ million Americans serving in uniform and a bill that is going to cost the taxpayers $450 billion in 1 year. We want to spend a couple days on this bill and we are not being allowed to because the administration is pushing them and the gun lobby is pushing them.

Look, I am not opposed to everything the administration does. I am not opposed to everything the gun lobby does. But I am opposed to what the administration is doing in this instance and the gun lobby in this instance because it is wrong for the people of our country.

Mr. DURBIN. I ask further if I could ask a question of the Senator from Nevada through the Chair. Is it my understanding the Senator from Nevada came to the floor and gave the Republican leader his assurance that these amendments would be considered in a timely fashion and that we would agree that this bill, the Department of Defense authorization bill, would be passed from the Senate this week, no later than Thursday evening, in plenty of time so that it will be there for the administration and for the conference committee to consider, so there would be no delay, so we could take up in a timely fashion amendments to help the totally disabled veterans, amendments to help the widows and orphans of those who have fallen in combat, amendments to help the Guard and Reserve when they are activated so their families can stay together? Did the Senator from Nevada give that assurance to the Republican leader, Senator Frist, that we are not trying to delay this unreasonably but want to move it through quickly, consider these amendments in a timely fashion, vote up or down and move to final passage this week?

Mr. REID. The answer is yes. I also say, Mr. President, so there is no problem later on, so everyone understands the quandary we are in-but we didn't get us there, we didn't spend a third of our time on three judges-here is the quandary we are in. As I understand the rules, if cloture is invoked on the Defense authorization bill, we will finish it sometime Wednesday evening. Then there will be a vote that will occur automatically on the gun handling bill legislation and then there will be 30 hours to debate the motion to proceed on the gun legislation. Senator Reed from Rhode Island has told me he wants to use all that 30 hours, he or some combination of Senators, so that will end sometime around midnight on Thursday. And then if the majority leader wants to continue the presentation of the gun legislation, there would have to be cloture filed again for a Saturday vote or maybe even have a Friday vote if he does it Friday before midnight, and then there is another 30 hours to go forward on the gun legislation. And during that period of time no other business can be conducted.

I have spoken with the majority leader about this issue. There will be a small window of time on Wednesday between whatever time the 30 hours runs out at midnight, if he decides to continue on the gun legislation, that we can in the few hours do the Energy conference report, Interior conference report, highway conference report, legislative branch conference report, and whatever else is available.

The time spent on judges has put this Senate in a real difficult position, notwithstanding that the majority leader promised the Senators from Hawaii they can do the Native Hawaiian bill.

I want everyone to understand what they are walking into. The best would be to defeat cloture. Senators from the majority side should join with us to defeat cloture, finish the bill in the ordinary course, and do whatever would come naturally after that, which would be a motion to proceed to the gun liability legislation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

AMENDMENT NO. 1342, AS MODIFIED

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, as I noted earlier when the majority leader offered this amendment, I support the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and other youth organizations. The Frist amendment seeks to ensure that government resources are not arbitrarily denied to youth organizations, while, at the same time, not limiting judicial review of the constitutionality of government actions.

I want to thank the distinguished majority leader for working with me to address my concerns regarding section 2, in which his amendment had provided a guaranteed funding level for youth organizations.

Together, we now have added flexibility to address cases where youth organizations no longer deserve the funding level they had previously received. For example, if a youth organization is convicted of a criminal offense or a senior officer of a youth organization is convicted of a criminal offense relating to his or her official duties, under this modification, the head of a Federal agency would be able to waive the guaranteed funding level. Federal agencies also would have the ability to waive this funding level if the youth organization is the subject of a criminal investigation relating to fraudulent use or waste of Federal funds. It is my expectation that Federal agencies will use ths discretion wisely.

Our modification also clarifies that the support that a Federal agency is required to provide youth organizations is subject to the availability of appropriations, which Congress can revisit each year.

I also want to take this opportunity to reaffirm the importance of our Nation's strong tradition of religious liberty, our tolerance of the religious beliefs of all people, and our respect for those who do not believe in God or a higher authority. This amendment respects the significance of religious liberty by not limiting the jurisdiction of Federal courts in determining the constitutionality of government support for youth organizations.

Therefore, I support this amendment, as modified.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov