Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2005
EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am disappointed that the Senator from Alaska, who has served the Senate and his country so well, now opposes this amendment. When it was last offered on an emergency supplemental bill on October 17, 2003, he joined with 95 of our colleagues in voting for this amendment. I think the amendment still is a valid amendment.
Let me explain what the amendment does. Seventeen thousand Federal employees have been activated into Guard and Reserve units. They find that when they go into this activated status, they are receiving less in income than they were paid by the Federal Government. The bill says the Federal agencies they worked for will make up the difference so as they are serving our country and risking their lives overseas they will have this pay differential, so their families will be able to keep the mortgage paid, pay the utility bills, and keep the family together.
The Senator suggests this is going to create some sort of a disadvantage to those in active military, but I am sure he feels, as I do, that companies across America that stand behind their employees who are activated in the Guard and Reserve are doing the right and patriotic thing by making up the difference in pay between what one is paid when they are home and what one is paid when they are in uniform. They are saying to this soldier: We are with you; we are with your family; serve your country and come back to your job; we are proud of you.
There is one employer at the top in America that does not do it. It is the Federal Government. The arguments are made on the floor today that if we stand behind these soldiers who are Federal employees, somehow it is a poor reflection on the rest of the military. That is not true. We revere and honor those who serve our country, active military, activated Guard, activated Reserve. Fifty-one percent of the activated Guard and Reserve take a cut in pay to serve America. What I am saying is if one is a Federal employee, for goodness sakes, they ought to have their salary made whole. Why should they go overseas, worrying about whether they are going to get hit by a bullet, step on a landmine or hit by a rocket-propelled grenade, and whether their spouse can pay the bills at home for tuition for the kids? Why do we not stand behind these soldiers who are serving? We are out there on the Fourth of July waving our flags, but, for goodness sakes, we have a chance to stand behind them today on the Senate floor. It is absolutely shameful that the Federal Government will not provide the same kind of pay protection for our activated Guard and Reserve that over 900 private businesses, State and local governments, have provided across America. We honor them.
The Secretary of Defense has a Web site to honor the fact that they are standing behind the soldiers, but we do not do it. The Federal Government does not do it. This is our chance to make a difference.
Also, on the Kerry amendment, I disagree with the Senator from Alaska. To think that if someone is on a troop plane headed over to Kuwait and, God forbid, it crashes, they are entitled to $12,000; however, if they get off the plane and are killed in combat they should be entitled to $100,000--I think they are heroes in both instances. Senator Kerry is suggesting we should regard them as such. I think his amendment is a valid amendment and, yes, it does cost money. It costs money to stand behind our veterans, our soldiers, and their families. That is part of the real cost of war. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. The amendment I am offering today passed 96 to 3 when last called. It passed by a voice vote after that. It has the support of the Reserve Officers Association, the National Guard Association of the United States, and the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States. These organizations represent the men and women who are risking their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, and are asking for basic fairness from the Federal Government. I think this amendment is long overdue.
For 3 years now, this amendment has been lost in conference. It passes on the Senate floor and disappears, and Federal employees activated to serve our country wonder what happened. Well, today we will have a chance with this rollcall vote to see if we want to stand behind these men and women in uniform. This is an amendment that is long overdue.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Salazar of Colorado be added as a cosponsor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. I say to the Senator, if I had not lost this amendment twice in conference after it passed the Senate, I would agree to that, but I think we need a record vote. I do not know what it takes to finally get this Senate to go on record and stand by the Senate position in conference. Twice now we have taken this proposal to conference and it has disappeared, with the White House or Department of Defense or somebody opposing it. If we have a record vote, I think we have a much better chance to say to the conferees, for goodness sakes, the third time, let us stand up for these men and women.
I am sorry; I want to insist on the yeas and nays. I believe that is the only way to make it clear where we stand on the issue and to convince the conferees to finally stand for the Senate position if it succeeds.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I enjoyed this debate. It has been over 15 years since the Senate has had real debate on immigration. The Simpson-Mazzoli bill was the last time the Senate seriously looked at this issue, and it took us years to finally come up with a bill. We have not seriously addressed changes since.
There have been dramatic changes across America in immigration patterns, the number of people coming in, certainly issues of national security. If there is ever an issue we should address in comprehensive fashion, it is immigration.
I commend President Bush. We do not see eye to eye on many things, but I commend him for his leadership in suggesting we debate immigration. His proposal is not one I embrace in its entirety, but it at least opened the debate. Many were critical of it, some lauded it, but at least he had the courage to step up and say: Let's debate it.
Now comes the sense-of-the-Senate resolution that says we have an important bill before us relative to the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and tsunami relief. Senator Cornyn, a Republican of Texas, and Senator Feinstein, a Democrat of California, have said this bill should not include immigration provisions. I think they make a compelling argument, an argument which I joined with several of my colleagues in making to Senator Frist a few days ago, who cosigned a letter--about 20 of us--to Senator Frist saying we do not believe one specific immigration provision should be part of this conference or this appropriations bill, and that relates to the REAL ID.
For those who have not followed the debate, the REAL ID is a provision adopted in the House of Representatives which will be part of this appropriations bill when the House and Senate come together to decide the final work product.
My concern, I say to Senator Cornyn and Senator Feinstein, is that the garlic is in the soup. There is no way to take it out at this point. Those of us who may be conferees will walk into that conference committee and face an immigration issue, a very serious immigration issue, a very controversial one.
So the suggestion we not add any immigration debate to this bill may be a good one to expedite it but like it or not we are going to face what I consider to be some very onerous provisions of the REAL ID bill which will be part of the conference committee report. If it is appropriate, I will retain the floor but ask the Senator from Texas about that particular circumstance. Would the Senator from Texas be open to modifying his sense of the Senate resolution in paragraph 4? In paragraph 4, the Senators from Texas and California say Congress should not short circuit the discussion of immigration by attaching amendments to this supplemental outside of the regular order.
Would the Senator from Texas modify his resolution to add the following language: Or by including provisions relating to immigration in the conference report to this supplemental appropriation bill?
If the Senator would, then I think what we are saying is we want a clean bill. By this vote, we are instructing our conferees to not come back with REAL ID, to not come back with any immigration provision.
I understand the predicament Senator Mikulski faces in Maryland. Senator Reed of Rhode Island faces a similar predicament when it comes to Liberian refugees. Senator Schumer faces an emergency situation with victims of volcano on an island who are now going to be deported back to tragic circumstances.
The point I am making is we cannot escape the reality immigration is on top of us and coming at us, but if we want this bill--because of its special nature--to be clean, I ask, without yielding the floor, if I could, through the Chair, if the Senator from Texas would be open to including this language in his sense of the Senate resolution?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Texas. I do apologize. I mentioned to him a minute or two ago that I was going to ask a question along these lines. I would like to ask Senator Cornyn and Senator Feinstein to consider this. Because if we do not go to that next step and say we are not going to let the House bring in an immigration provision in conference and tie our own hands and not offer important immigration provisions in the Senate, that is unfair. If we are going to make this an immigration and appropriations bill, then we have some pretty important issues to consider.
Senator Kennedy has an issue with Senator Craig--Senator Mikulski, so many do. If this conference is going to be open and the REAL ID provisions come rolling out at us, as difficult as it is, as time consuming as it may be, we have no recourse but to open the issue and open the debate.
I yield the floor.
http://thomas.loc.gov/