Guard and Reserve Readiness and Retention Act of 2004

Mr. President, as to the points of the pending amendment that the Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from South Dakota have spoken very eloquently about with regard to their amendment, I will interject briefly my own observations and strong opposition because I believe that the Armed Services Committee structured a very adequate program for the Reserves.

I direct the attention of Members to page 135 and thereafter in the bill on each desk, which outlines what the committee did. Roughly, the President's bill had $300 million in allocations toward additional benefits for the Reserve and Guard. The committee went beyond that and added another $400 million, and now along comes this proposal which would add on top of that another $700 million.

We are really beginning to face quite a severe dollar problem because unless this amendment is defeated, it would require the conference to seek out cuts in other military programs, all of those programs having been carefully evaluated by the two committees, the House and the Senate, and reduce them by some $700 million. That is the bottom line.

The other reason I feel very strongly about that this proposed legislation is not in the best interest of the services, it really begins to provide for the Reserve and Guard Forces in a manner that is commensurate with the Active-Duty military personnel.

Stop and think. When a young person--and oftentimes that person now has a family with a wife and vice versa as the case may be--sits down and evaluates their life and how they would like to make a commitment to service in uniform to this country, suddenly they look at the alternatives. Well, there is the Active and we get a certain degree of benefits under the Active; then there is the Reserve or the Guard, and they compare the benefits that they would get under that program. If this legislation is passed, it is beginning to close the last gap between the benefits on the Active side and the benefits on the Reserve and Guard side.

Now, one might say, well, Senator, when the Reserves are called to active duty, they perform just as the Active member, and that is correct; they take the same risk as the Active member, and that is correct; the family assumes much the same hardships as the Active member, and that is correct. But when the Reserve completes his or her obligation of a callup, they return to the Reserve status, they return to their homes, they return to their civilian jobs and their life in the civilian community with such obligations as their Reserve or Guard requirements require.

The Active person perhaps finishes their overseas commitment, they go back to the training base, they are fully in the military, fully subjected to the regimen of the military, fully subjected to going right back overseas on a very short turnaround basis. We have witnessed that during this conflict period covering the AORs of Afghanistan and Iraq. But the regular soldier, sailor, airman, and marine, when they commit to a tour of duty of 3 or 4 years' obligated service, or the officers accept their commissions and obligate themselves for 4 or 5 years, whatever the case may be, they understand that, but it makes for equity and fairness that the Active rolls have some benefits that compensate for the rigors, the constant risk, the constant disruption, the constant moving of the Active-Duty Force, unlike the reservist who is called back for a period of time, then released to go back to their civilian jobs and their homes. They could own that one home, whereas the military soldier, the careerist on active duty, often has to get a home, sell it, go get another one, sell it, move, move, sell, rent. Those are hardships for which I think through the years the Congress has carefully balanced out an equitable formulation of the benefits for the Active Force and the Guard and Reserve.

This amendment makes a very substantial closing of that gap, and I think it will be an inducement for young people now to go into the Reserve and Guard because they are going to have just about the same benefits as the individual on active duty, but they can stay in their homes, stay in their jobs, perform their weekends and 2 weeks in the summer active field training. They can match both their civilian life and their Guard and Reserve life and balance it in such a way as to basically stay home. That is not so with the regular force.

So when we reported out the bill S. 2400, we went further than the Senate has ever gone before to improve health care benefits for Reserve members, and it reflects our Nation's growing reliance on their service. When a Reserve or Guard is called up, within 30 days--and I think in a respectful way I brought this to the attention of the distinguished Democratic leader--they are treated just as an active Regular once they go on that active duty. We have added permanent TRICARE coverage before and after mobilization and created a new option for the Reserves and their families to participate in TRICARE while they are enjoying the benefits of civilian life. They have an option but they have to pay something for it.

The bottom line is we are dealing with the taxpayers' money. That is what we are dealing with, the taxpayers' money, and it is quite a considerable commitment under this amendment.

Our fundamental disagreement is how we achieve these goals. The difference, again, is cost. The amendment would be $700 million for this 1 fiscal year, $5.7 billion over the ensuing 5 years, and $14.2 billion over a 10-year period from adoption. We are under stringent budgets these days, and our military is very much in need of modernization, new equipment, additional training, reconfiguration, particularly the U.S. Army, and all those are costly

items. If this amendment were adopted, it would draw down on that ability of modernization.

Our statistics show the vast majority of reservists and their families, at least 85 percent according to the Comptroller General, have health coverage from their employers. Recruitment and retention among Reserves at the present time is not a crisis. So this is not a recruiting tool.

So I ask my colleagues, why, then, should we respond to increasing calls to the Reserve providing health care compensation in a civilian capacity that is so costly as to guarantee erosion of funding needed for readiness requirements of the other military branches? Under S. 2400, all become eligible for TRICARE when they are mobilized in support of a contingency. All are eligible for 6 months additional coverage after they are demobilized. Mr. President, $200 million is set aside for a demonstration project to provide coverage for the unemployed and the uninsured.

In addition to these new benefits, let us not forget that all reservists and their families are eligible to enroll in the Reserve dental insurance program, in which the government pays 60 percent of premiums for reserve families whose sponsors are mobilized for more than 30 days; and all reservists who retire with 20 years of creditable service are eligible for TRICARE for life when they reach age 60.

Colleagues, the amendment will duplicate private insurance, handing a windfall to the insurance companies who are now paying full premiums for coverage of civilian-employed reservists. The amendment asks the taxpayers to take the place of employers in providing health care coverage for reserve members while they enjoy the benefits of civilian employment and civilian life.

The underlying bill also includes authority for appointment of an independent commission on the future roles and mission of the reserves. This commission would examine all the proposals for enhancements to compensation and benefits of Reserve members that have been proposed in light of changes in current and future roles.

We should not more blindly into a permanent and costly government entitlement for reservists while, unlike their active duty counterparts, they are enjoying the benefits of civilian life, and earning benefits in their civilian roles.

This is the fundamental basis for the reserve: an option, desirable to many, to maintain civilian employment and benefit status and civilian lifestyles for the majority of their careers, while serving in reserve for the nation's active military components.

Let us not ignore the significant investment and improvements in the underyling bill for reserve members and their families, which are affordable for this country, today and in the future.

So I think we have hit a very balanced program in the committee bill acted upon by all members of the committee. To the best of my knowledge it was voted out unanimously by committee. I hate to see this treatment of the hard work of the committee. They are entrusted, by virtue of their assignments on this committee, with making the tough decisions as to how best to balance the benefits given to the Guard and Reserve and those in the Active Force. And I come back to the American taxpayer who has to foot a very considerable permanent guarantee, the entitlement under this program for many years.

At this time I yield the floor.

Would the Chair advise the Chamber with regard to the time remaining under the control of the Senator from Virginia and the control of the two proponents of the measure?

I see. I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I think that is a very good suggestion. We then seek unanimous consent to vote, now, at 3:30, with the understanding that in the interim period we could set the amendment aside, bring up another amendment, and then terminate debate on that amendment at the established 3:30?

I understand we will soon be carefully scripted by our very able staff.

Mr. President, as usual our distinguished colleague has stated the facts with accuracy.

Not on time yielding, as I understand it; whoever seeks recognition. I have had a time to speak. As I understand it, my colleague from Michigan----

Mr. President, at this time I would like to lay this amendment aside and proceed with another matter, with the understanding that prior to the vote, assuming we do establish the vote to be at 3:30, there may be some desire by the proponents as well as the opponents to speak for a few minutes.

We will proceed at this time.

I now ask unanimous consent that following the granting of this consent, the pending amendment be temporarily set aside in order for the chairman to offer an amendment regarding a $25 billion contingent fund. I further ask consent the vote in relation to the pending TRICARE amendment occur at 3:45 today, with the 15 minutes prior to that vote equally divided in the usual form, with no second- degree amendment in order prior to the vote. I further ask consent following the vote, the Senate begin the 60-minute period during morning business and provided for earlier. That will address the recognition of the World War II veterans who are currently Members of the Senate.

I amend one thing, if I may, from my reading, and that is at 20 minutes prior to the vote, I understand there is another speaker on my side who may wish to speak.

That is correct.

Correct.

No, extending 5 minutes.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside.

I now send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

I think that should say Senator Warner, for himself, Mr. Levin, and Mr. Stevens.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Quickly, our colleagues are pretty well familiar with this, but I will take a short few moments to address it.

When the administration presented its budget request for fiscal year 2005 in February, the request did not include funding for costs associated with the ongoing global war on terrorism. This is in keeping with longstanding tradition of funding ongoing military operations through supplemental appropriations. At that time, the administration stated that it expected to request a supplemental to cover these costs, after the start of calendar year 2005. Prior to the passage of a supplemental, the administration planned to cover the cost of the war with funds from other military accounts--a process commonly called ``cash flowing.'' Administration officials stated in February and March that ``cash flowing'' ongoing military operations presented acceptable and manageable risk.

On May 5, President Bush announced his intention to request a $25 billion contingent reserve fund for fiscal year 2005 for United States military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The President stated that, ``While we do not know the precise costs for operations next year, recent developments on the ground and increased demands on our troops indicate the need to plan for contingencies. We must make sure there is no disruption in funding and resources for our troops.'' In my judgment, this is a prudent course of action, and it has my strongest support.

It is important to note that, even with this reserve fund, the administration will still request a full fiscal year 2005 supplemental after the first of the year, when it can better estimate the costs of the ongoing war on terror.

When the President made his announcement 3 weeks ago, the committee was in the process of marking up the fiscal year 2005 national defense authorization bill. At the request of Senator Byrd, the committee deferred action on this request for additional funding until we could hold a hearing to receive more information on this request.

On Thursday, May 13, the committee held a hearing on the administration's amended budget request. Committee staff then met with administration and Defense Department officials to address concerns raised by committee members during that hearing. After careful study of the administration's request and consultation on both sides of the aisle, the committee supports inclusion of a $25 billion reserve, with some additional restrictions and reporting requirements.

As proposed by the administration, this contingency reserve fund would essentially have been a $25 billion transfer account. Many members expressed concern over this in our hearing. As drafted, the amendment requires that $22 billion of the fund be spent on specific accounts. Only $3 billion would be in the form of a transfer account which could be spent only after prior consultation and notification.

Increased demands on our troops, particularly in Iraq, have led to concerns that additional funding may be needed prior to the start of calendar year 2005, thus the need for contingency funding. As proposed, the contingent emergency reserve fund would act as a ``bridge'' between the fiscal year 2005 budget request and the fiscal year 2005 supplemental expected in February 2005.

Without a contingent reserve fund, to mitigate the risks, the department may be forced to ``cash flow'' ongoing operations with other funding sources until supplemental funds are appropriated, which could be well into the second quarter of fiscal year 2005. Ongoing procurement programs, modernization efforts, and even training could be adversely affected from having to pay up front for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I agree with the President that our first commitment must be to America's security and that our troops ``have the resources they need, when they need them.''

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee and his colleagues for supporting this issue. As he most eloquently stated, the purpose is clear. It is to avoid the repetition of the past where we have gone into the forage fund to meet contingencies. We know they exist today. It is best we face up to it and put it on record.

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague. At this time, I suggest that we go off of the Warner amendment, which I ask be laid aside, and return to the pending amendment by the Senator from South Carolina, at which time I think a number of colleagues are anxious to address the Senate.

Mr. President, I yield to our distinguished colleague from Alabama such time as he may require, to be followed by our distinguished colleague from Oklahoma, with the understanding that the vote will commence, as described under the standing order, at 3:45.

Mr. President, I will seek additional time for my colleagues if that becomes necessary.

I thank my colleague from Alabama, as well as the senior Senator from Oklahoma, and now I am privileged to have the wisdom of the junior Senator from Oklahoma.

First, I thank my distinguished colleague from Oklahoma, as well as those we have just spoken. These are individuals who, like me, have first and foremost in their hearts the welfare of the men and women of the Armed Forces in every possible way, but we must also bear in mind the fiscal realities with which we are confronted, the equities between the balance of benefits to the Active Duty and Reserve and the Guard and the need at this time.

It is available should anyone want it, but it has to be on a shared- cost basis with the taxpayers of the United States.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the distinguished Senator from Vermont be given such time as he may consume.

Mr. President, I wonder if I might be allowed one-quarter minute to reply to my colleague from Vermont?

My colleague very kindly referred to our conversation earlier today when he, as every Member of this Chamber, has taken time to attend funerals in their respective States for those who lost their lives in the conflicts now ongoing, principally in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I mentioned to him a soldier's grave at the Battle of Normandy. It was a British soldier, and he was killed in the invasion. As custom in the British military, the families may put a brief inscription on the tombstones. On this tombstone is the phrase:

To the world he was known but as one. To his family he was

known as the world.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote in relation to the pending Warner-Levin-Stevens amendment occur at 6:30 tonight, with no second degrees in order to the amendment prior to the vote.

Yes.

I just need 10 minutes to speak on the amendment.

Just to conclude this debate, this debate has been going on for a very long time, more than a year, on how to best take care of the Guard and Reserve Forces in terms of their health care needs. It is an honest debate, sincere debate. Mr. President, 85 Members of the Senate voted last year on this very amendment. I think I understand why they voted to extend health care benefits to the Guard and Reserve, full time, and with the premium to be paid for them. It makes sense for our military needs. Forty percent of our people in Iraq and Afghanistan are going to be Guard and Reserve members.

Let me explain as best as I can how this works. If you are a member of the Guard and Reserve today, while you are serving in that capacity you have absolutely zero health care benefits offered to you from the military. A part-time Federal Government employee, a temporary Federal Government employee receives health care benefits. So go home and explain that one. You can be a part-time Federal employee, work in the Senate or the House, and you get health care. You can be a part-time citizen soldier, training to defend America, and you get zip.

Now, it is true when you are called to active duty you get everything an Active-Duty person gets. The reason is because you are on active duty. That is not that great of a benefit, to pay you like somebody right next to you and to give you the same benefits because you are doing the same job. The point we are trying to make is, there is a problem in the Guard and Reserve community when it comes to health care. Mr. President, 25 percent of the people called to active duty, as I stated before, from the Guard and Reserve community are unable to go on active duty

because of health care problems. I would argue that we need a better health care network covering our Guard and Reserve members and their families, from a readiness point of view.

Let's talk a little bit about retention. The head of the Army Reserve said yesterday--and this is back in January--that the 205,000-soldier force must guard against a potential crisis in its ability to retain troops, saying serious problems were being masked temporarily because reservists are barred from leaving the military while the units are mobilized in Iraq.

In this prison abuse scandal what we found was that the MPs in that jail, and some of their associates, were due to go home, but they couldn't go back home because they were needed in Iraq, and they had the rug pulled out from under them, causing tremendous morale problems.

``This is the first extended duration war our Nation has fought with an all-volunteer force,'' said LTG James R. Henley, the head of the Reserves. ``We must be sensitive to that and we must provide proactive, preventive measures to prevent a recruiting retention crisis.'' 1-21- 04.

``We got a real retention issue,'' said Republican Governor of South Carolina, Mark Sanford, our Governor and a member of the Air Force Reserve. ``We are going to see it emptying when people's tickets are up and when Guardsmen are not stepping up to the plate.''

You know, I am not sure that is true. Patriotism is high. To prevent them from getting out, we need to be thinking of what we can do to make it a more attractive job. But let's say you stay in. What can you do to honor your service to our country? This Congress has spent $400 billion on Medicare improvements. Let's talk about money for a minute. We are trying to get every senior in the country to sign up for a discount card because we want to help seniors. Great, good idea.

We are trying to spend $1 billion a year for 5 years to give Guard and Reserve members continuity of health care coverage, and we are arguing about the money? We spent $20 billion of hard-earned taxpayer money in Iraq. We gave it to the Iraqi people, to build their hospitals, to build their schools, to build their roads, to build their fire departments, and their police stations, to train their army. Do you know what. The money is needed.

I wanted to loan some of it because they are sitting on $1 trillion worth of oil. I like helping people but I want people to help themselves. So when it came time to write this amendment we did strike a balance. Here is the balance.

Right now, as a Guard and Reserve member, you are a part-time Federal employee. Unlike every other part-time Federal employee, you get nothing. So here is what we are suggesting. If you want to, you can sign up for military health care year round. It will be eligible for you and your family--you will be eligible for that program. But while you are a Guard or Reserve member you are going to have to pay a premium like a Federal employee. I wish we could get the Iraqi people to help pay some of the money back, but we are not. So they are going to make a contribution. This is not a free deal. They have to pay like every other part-time Federal employee. Put them in that same category. They deserve to be in that category.

Here is the difference between an Active-Duty troop and a Guard and Reserve member. No. 1, an Active-Duty troop is doing a great job, and we should pay them more. Senator Warner has done a great job improving benefits for Active-Duty people. Our Armed Services Committee in the Senate has been second to no one in trying to make a better life for those who serve our country. My hat is off to them. We just have a disagreement over this particular amendment. But we are daily improving the benefit package of Active-Duty people. By God, they deserve it.

But here is why it will not affect recruiting. The Pentagon has started this argument. It is the most bogus argument I have ever heard. It is that if you offer TRICARE eligibility for the military members who would have to pay $1,800 a year for the benefit, as a premium for a family, that somehow that will hurt recruiting for active duty.

Here is your choice if you are going to pick between the two programs. You have a Reserve job or a Guard job that allows you to work one weekend a month, 2 weeks a year, and you get to retire when you are 60. The Active-Duty person gets a full paycheck, gets full health care benefits, gets a retirement after 20 years. There is no way that is going to compete and take people away from Active-Duty Forces. How are you going to raise a family working 2 days a month? They are part-time employees in a vital job, to defend America. Unlike every other part- time Federal employee, they are not eligible for Federal Government health care, and they should be. We are asking them to pay a premium unless they are called to active duty.

That is a fiscally responsible balance. We spent $20 billion of the taxpayers' money to make Iraq a better place. We spent $400 billion and counting on a prescription drug program for our seniors. Here we are, trying to get $5.4 billion over a 5-year period to cover 300,000 families who have suffered beyond description, in terms of leaving their homes and their jobs for pay cuts. Most Guard and Reserve members, when called to active duty, leave obligations behind, greater than the military paycheck. They make more money in the civilian world and when they are called to active duty they take a pay cut and we don't make up the difference. But they know that going in.

There are small things that mean a lot to these people, and this is truly small, in terms of money. It is two-tenths of 1 percent of the budget. Mr. President, 25 percent of the people are unable to go on active duty when called to the Guard and Reserve community because of health care problems. This amendment more than pays for itself. The money is well spent. It is affordable, and there are many programs in this budget that cost more than $700 million that, if you ask the taxpayer to choose, I think the Guard and Reserve community would win every time.

How many bills do we pass every year that spend billions of dollars on questionable programs? This is the one area upon which we can all agree. The Guard and Reserve community needs a better benefit package because they are being asked to do more than ever. They are dying at a greater rate this year than last year. What has happened in the year when we first debated this? There are more of them and they are dying at a faster rate.

The father of TRICARE is Senator Warner.

This is why I object to committee markups. No. 1, the entire cost of TRICARE under the committee markup is borne by the employer community and the reservists. The Government doesn't contribute one penny to the health care needs of our Guard and Reserve members. That is wrong.

The unsung hero of this whole war effort, when it comes to the Guard and Reserve community, is the employer. Wouldn't it be nice if we could take a load off of small businesses and large businesses which have guardsmen and reservists and share in the cost of health care along with the Guard members themselves and take them off the payroll? It is a small thing. It would mean a lot to employers.

Employers have paid the difference between active pay and civilian pay voluntarily, and in huge numbers. We have done nothing to thank them. Taking care of the health care needs of our Guard and Reserve Forces is one less problem an employer has to worry about.

I ask the 85 Members of the Senate who voted last year for this very same measure, which is now $300 million cheaper and going down every minute because we are trying to make it cheaper, to step to the plate and say to the Guard and Reserve community: We got it. We understand your sacrifice. We understand your stress. We understand your family is having health care coverage problems. Twenty percent of them have no health care. They are bouncing from one group to the next, and we are going to fix that. We are going to give you an option. We are going to ask you to pay some, but we are going to make your health care life better.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters of support for this amendment from the National Guard Association of the United

States, the Reserve Officers Association of the United States, the Reserve Enlisted Association, the Air Force Sergeants Association, along with the National Guard Association of the United States.

Mr. President, these letters are not just words on paper. I challenge every member of the public and every Senator to go back home and spend a few minutes in a Guard and Reserve unit and ask about TRICARE for those who have been on active duty.

Does it work? Senator Warner deserves great praise because it is working. Ask the question: If you could sign up for TRICARE year round and pay a premium, how many of you would do it? Hands would be raised. It would be a great benefit to the 300,000 forces. It would be good for their families. It would be good for retention. It is affordable, and it is the right thing to do.

I yield the floor.

I would like a couple of minutes.

Mr. President, following those eloquent words of the chairman, this is not about who cares about our military; we all do. This is about priorities and what we are going to do when we say we care.

The law of the country is such that, if you are a part-time Federal employee working 16 hours, you are eligible for Federal Government health care. If you are a part-time citizen soldier training to defend your country, answering calls for hurricanes and natural disasters in your State and providing homeland security, you get zero. We need to fix that.

The committee bill puts a proposal on the table that goes as follows: The guardsmen and reservists pay some; the employer pays the other 72 percent. Your Government doesn't contribute 1 penny to the health care needs of the Guard and Reserve community. Mr. President, 25 percent of the Guard and Reserve called to go on active duty can't go because of their lack of health care. We need to invest in their health care because they are keeping us free.

Medicare has a $400 billion prescription drug benefit that has just been passed. I voted no because I am worried about the explosive cost to the future and our grandchildren not being able to afford it. I got outvoted. It is a program that is in existence. You can sign up for a discount card today. You ought to look into it.

We gave $20 billion to the Iraqi people who are sitting on $1 trillion worth of oil and we are not asking for 1 penny back in payment. We are going to build schools, roads, highways; we are going to spend $25 billion--more, probably, before the day is over-- supporting our troops to support Iraq.

Our bill allows Guard and Reserve families and Guard and Reserve members to be part of the military health care system year round. When they are not called to active duty they have to pay a premium of $1,800 a year for their family, just like a part-time Federal employee. People in Iraq are not paying anything back. It is a total gift.

Mr. President, $400 billion to provide discounts for every senior in America--$400 billion. This costs $1 billion a year for 300,000 families. There are bills in this Senate and this House where one bridge costs more than the health care program needs of 300,000 families.

I will take a backseat to no one about trying to save taxpayer dollars. I would argue, if the taxpayers could be here today and if they could vote to spend this $1 billion to make sure the citizen soldier is treated as every other part-time Federal employee, they would say: Here is my wallet, take what you need. This idea we can't afford it is bogus.

Absolutely.

The way the program works, you can be a temporary employee working 16 hours, work a year, then get health care, and you pay a premium. If you work 16 hours a week, you can get full- time health care benefits paying a premium. What a Guard member does, he works 2 days a month, 2 weeks a year, and 40 percent of the people in Afghanistan and Iraq come out of that pool. Now they are getting killed. It is not an average, everyday part-time job. The people who are left behind, the families, take a pay cut. The average Guard and Reserve member, when they get called to active duty their pay goes down, but they don't complain. They go, I say with all due respect.

They do, and when they come back home because of what we did last year they get health care for 6 months. But after that 6 months, 25 percent of them go back into the civilian world where they have no health care, zero. That is not right. That is not like every other Federal employee who is part-time. That is not right and we cannot afford to let that continue to happen because we are going to be needing these men and women more than ever. Their families are stressed. This is a chance to spend a little bit of money on people who are giving everything, including their lives and their limbs.

I ask unanimous consent to add the following cosponsors: Senators Allen, Murkowski, Lott, Coleman, DeWine, Leahy, Clinton, Lincoln, Corzine, Dorgan, Bingaman, Murray, and Landrieu.

I just have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. President, as I understand it, this is going to be a unanimous consent that is going to be entered formally, but it has not yet been entered; is that correct?

Reserving the right to object, to clarify, is it 20 minutes on top of the 15 minutes?

Mr. President, first, let me commend my good friend, the chairman of our committee, for this amendment. This amendment is very much needed, first of all. We know we are going to need these funds for the operations we are planning in the next fiscal year.

The budget that was submitted to us in January did not have the extra funding which we knew would be required because of our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many Members pointed that out. Indeed, I wrote a letter to the Budget Committee on February 24th pointing out the budget request for Defense represented a reasonable estimate of the cost for supporting the normal operations of the activities, but that the request does not include any request to support the incremental costs of our military forces for continuing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

At that point, the administration indicated it would not seek any additional funds, supplementally, to pay for these incremental costs this calendar year. It was their intention at that time to wait until the next calendar year to do that. I, and many others here, thought that was not a responsible way to budget. There was a political tone to it because it delayed paying the piper for the costs of this war until after the election, and there was no point in being that disingenuous about what we all know is going to be required.

I very much support--and I think every Member of this body supports-- paying for the needs of our troops, regardless of what one's position is as to how we got to Iraq, how we are doing in Iraq, whether we ought to be doing things differently in Iraq. Regardless of the difference of position of Members of this body on those subjects, when it comes to the support of the operations of our forces and their pay and benefits and needs, I think there is overwhelming if not total unanimous support for funding those troops.

The recent approval by the Department of Defense of increased force levels in Iraq has made this need even more urgent. Even before the Department approved the additional 30,000 troops, approximately, for Iraq, there was an acknowledgement by the uniformed military leaders that the additional costs of ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are approximately $4 billion to $5 billion per month. So there was no reason, in terms of sound budgeting, for us to hide that fact from the American people.

Just to give one example of that, a recent headline, which perhaps says the whole thing, from the May 5 Washington Post read: ``138,000 Troops to Stay in Iraq Through 2005.'' Well, that kind of says it all. We need this supplemental because we know there is going to be that many troops--more than planned at the time this budget was submitted to us--staying in Iraq through 2005.

The fact that we do not know the exact, precise amount for the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan is not an excuse to do nothing. Of course we do not know precisely the cost, but we know approximately the cost from our experience there. We have estimates of these costs from our uniformed and civilian leadership now that the civilian leadership is committed to this course of action.

One thing we do know for certain: We know, for certain, the amount in the

President's budget--which was zero--is the wrong number. We don't know whether the right number is going to be $4.8 billion or $4.9 billion per month, but we know the approximate number, and we know what is $4 billion to $5 billion short per month, which is what the President's budget was.

Both the House and the Senate, in their budget resolutions, advanced the ball on this issue. The Senate made $30 billion available on a contingent basis if the President requested the additional funds, as he now has. That was intended to be approximately half the year so we would not have to use funds forward from accounts early in the year, leaving those accounts short later in the year.

It was my belief that if we added just 6 months of what we knew would be the supplemental amount needed, that would be enough for us to then, early next year, adopt a supplemental appropriations bill for the balance. The amendment that Senator Warner and I and Senator Stevens are now offering authorizes the level requested by the President, which is $25 billion, which is within the Senate-passed level of $30 billion.

Again, we know this money is not going to be enough to cover all of fiscal year 2005, but it will cover at least, we expect, October 1--the beginning of the fiscal year--through January 31. Since Congress is scheduled to be out of session during that entire period, we would not be in a good position to act then. We are in a position to act now, and we should do so.

The budget request from the President was really a blank check. We have amended it, changed it, modified it in many ways. First of all, it is more detailed. We assign money from two various accounts, such as operation and maintenance, such as personnel.

The amendment we are offering also does not allow the administration to move money around as it wanted to with total flexibility. We have put limits on their ability to move money within that account, as we should in terms of carrying out our responsibility as the appropriating and authorizing body.

This amendment is more structured, more stringent and, I believe, more responsible from a legislative point of view than was the proposal that was given to us by the administration. We allocate the $25 billion: $14 billion, for instance, for operation and maintenance armor, which is the biggest chunk of money needed. And everybody acknowledged that was the biggest chunk. But the administration proposal provided that after we listed all these allocations between Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and so forth, that--and this is what their proposal read:

In addition to the transfers authorized in the previous

proviso, after consultation with the director of Office of

Management and Budget, the Secretary of Defense may transfer

the funds provided herein to any appropriation or fund of the

Department of Defense or classified program.

So after looking as though it was allocating the $25 billion to various accounts, the language which was submitted to us, which we are now deleting, would have in effect given the administration and the Department of Defense a blank check because it said, in addition to the numbers enumerated, they can, after consulting with themselves--that is, the Department of Defense consulting with the OMB Director--move the funds provided to any appropriation or fund of the Department of Defense.

Again, that was the definition of the blank check. We have eliminated that language from the proposal that was submitted to us by the administration. It was the responsible thing to do.

Our amendment basically reflected the same numbers that the administration proposed. For instance, the Army's operating funds, which were the primary reason that we need these funds this year, are now guaranteed, if we can, of course, get this passed in the Senate, get it passed in the House, signed by the President. This will be guaranteed to the Army for their operating cost this year. That will avoid some of the real problems which we would have had otherwise in spending next year's money this year, borrowing huge amounts of money, disrupting normal activities in the Army and the other services in order to cash-flow expenditures.

If we did not provide more funding when needed, there would have been a very real chance that the Army, possibly the Marine Corps Special Operations Command, could be out of funds by the time the Congress would be ready to act next February.

So this is the right thing to do, to act now for our men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan who need and deserve the support, for those serving in the United States and in other locations around the world from whose budgets funds would have been borrowed to provide the support if we do not act.

Finally, the Secretary of Defense is now authorized the additional 30,000 extra Army personnel. What this budget does is to recognize that fact. It was appropriate that the administration acknowledged that those troops were going to remain in Iraq. That is a fact of life. And that being a given--that is the reality--it seems to me we are now carrying out our responsibility to our troops by reflecting that reality with the funds that we are hereby authorizing this year and not simply delaying until next year when a number of undesirable effects could have been felt and surely should be avoided. Our troops deserve a lot better than our stealing from next year's funds to pay their costs this year, when we should be budgeting this year for this year's cost. That is precisely what we are doing now.

I thank particularly our uniformed leadership. General Abizaid appeared in front of us. He was very direct when we asked him what the additional funding needs were. He indicated that, after accounting for the extra approximately 20,000 troops then, he expected the monthly rate of spending to be even higher than it had been up until then.

And it is because we were able to get such testimony from our uniform leadership that I think that spurred us on and encouraged us to insist that we be responsible in the authorizing bill this year rather than simply saying, well, we will steal from next year's funds and take up a supplemental next year. We are going to need the money. This isn't the final answer. It is the first installment. Again, I emphasize this is just the first 5 or 6 months. There is going to have to be a supplemental next year. But we will be able to pass that when we come back in the beginning of next year and not force our services to steal from future funding in order to pay for the needs that are going to exist at the end of this year.

So it is a foreseeable problem. We are acting now to avoid it. It is the responsible way for this body to act. I commend Senator Warner, again, for his leadership on this amendment, Senator Stevens, and the willingness to put this together on a bipartisan basis.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter I wrote to Senators Nickles and Conrad be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, while the Senator from Alaska is in the Chamber, I thank the Senator for his work on the Appropriations Committee relative to this subject. As I indicated, I think the testimony before his committee indicated--I believe this morning--that we know it is about $4.7 billion or $4.8 billion at the current level of spending that we will need above what was in the budgeted amount. This provides that additional funding. It is the responsible thing to do. It has strong support on this side of the aisle as well as his. That is the way it should be when we have men and women in harm's way.

Amendment No. 3258

Mr. President, I have come to the Senate floor to support the amendment offered by my good friend, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner from Virginia.

This amendment will authorize appropriations for a $25 billion contingent emergency reserve fund. It is an amendment I am proud to support. It is not often, I might add, that the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee comes to the floor of the Senate to support an amendment from the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, but maybe we will set a new trend this year and I will welcome his support when we get to the floor.

But, in any event, this amendment is in direct support of our ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it is limited to that. It should be adopted. It covers emergency concepts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

It is important that the Congress act on the President's request for this reserve fund. It will ensure that our men and women in uniform continue to have the resources they need. We have worked very hard to make certain that was the case in the past. This serves as a clear, unambiguous signal that while our troops are deployed and in harm's way, they will have the unequivocal and unwavering support of the Congress.

I believe it is important to support the President's request. It is a different type of concept. I want to be sure Members understand. It is not a blank check. It is one that is well defined, in a request that came to the Armed Services Committee and to the Appropriations Committee. The Armed Services Committee held a hearing on this issue with both civilian and military witnesses from the Department of Defense and the Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the chairman is commended for holding that hearing. The bill now before us is the result of the Armed Services Committee's consideration.

This morning, the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee also held a hearing to fully consider the President's request for this contingency emergency reserve fund. I was pleased to point out to our committee that this is a continuation of what we call the IFF that we created before both in 2003 and 2004.

This amendment is for the 2005 appropriations. We intend to include some form of a reserve fund as part of our fiscal year 2005 Defense appropriations bill. Although this has come as a supplemental request, we will add it to the 2005 appropriations bill, and our subcommittee has agreed to that, in effect, this morning.

The exact form of the reserve fund is being reviewed by our Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, but I assure the Senate that our Appropriations subcommittee will provide our armed services the funds they need, as requested by the President. Second, we will provide adequate and reasonable financial flexibility. Third, we will provide for full and fair congressional oversight.

We have developed, I believe, bipartisan support for this request of the President's this morning in our hearing before the Appropriations Committee. Certainly, the developments on the ground in Iraq make it plain that there is an absolute need to plan for contingencies. Our military commanders have prudent operational plans, but they must be prepared to respond to the dynamic events that are going forward now in Iraq. We can expect nothing less of our military leadership, and the Congress must give them the tools they need. This reserve fund will do that. It is a fund that is available for emergencies. They have funds available for the predictable needs of the military. These funds are for the unpredictable needs of the military over the period beginning in 2005.

The troops that are there are doing hard work. They must not find that fiscal issues might impede their doing the job they have to do in Iraq at this time. They should not be constrained in any way by the availability of money. The last thing I--and I believe all Senators-- would want would be for an operational commander to be concerned about whether there is enough money to do the job he has to do in an emergency.

This is an emergency fund. It does not mean they can add to the money they have automatically through regular appropriations without finding first--and the President must find--that there is an emergency for this money to be released. But it will be there. It will be a means where the President, on request, can notify the Congress with 5 days' notice that he intends to put some of this money to work.

I pointed out to our committee this morning, there have been 33 times that IFS funds have been released by the Department of Defense before on request of the President. Now we must provide this same kind of contingency emergency reserve fund because the alternatives available are too risky. The alternative would be we would have to meet and pass a separate bill, another supplemental. We want the reserve fund to be there for emergencies that could occur. I point out to the Senate, it may be that we would be out of session during that period. I hope we are out of session after the election. I have to stop and say that. I do think the concepts of the past, whereby the President has used the food and forage concept to dip into funds that were available for training for the next year or dip into funds for procurement, the President has that power. He can go to any fund that is available to meet an emergency.

This is to foresee that, to foresee the interruption of plan development, plan utilization of our forces, training of forces in order to get moneys for an emergency.

That practice should be avoided. I don't say it is wrong, but to borrow money from the third and fourth quarters to pay for urgent bills of the first and second quarters is not the way to do business. We set up a fund and say, if there is an emergency, tell us what you are going to use the money for and use it, unless we say no.

I applaud the decision of the President to ask for these resources now. I am one who went to the President and the administration and asked them not to send a supplemental for 2005 because I believe we should not have that until the first quarter of the next year. We thought we had enough money to go through this calendar year, but because of the turn of events in Iraq, that is not the case. The President decided the option of waiting was too risky, and he has asked us to provide this fund as a reserve fund. The President made the right choice. It was not an easy decision.

The people who have reviewed this so far in both committees, Armed Services and Appropriations, have agreed that the armed services need this flexibility to have funds available in an emergency and for use only in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is a good concept. I applaud the Senator from Virginia in offering the amendment, and I urge the Senate to adopt his amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Daschle amendment which would provide TRICARE benefits for reservists and their family members while in a non-active status, and direct the DoD to pay private insurance premiums for reservists when ordered to active duty. Under the Graham/Daschle proposal, if enrolled in TRICARE, Reserve members would pay 28 percent of the annual premium and the Department of Defense would pay the remaining 72 percent.

The benefit is cost prohibitive. CBO recently estimated the benefit would cost $700 million in fiscal year 2005, $5.7 billion over 5 years; and $14.2 billion over 10 years.

The Department of Defense estimates are much higher, at $1.9 billion in fiscal year 2005 and $11.6 billion over 5 years.--About $2 billion a year.

In future years, this enhanced benefit will carve out essential funding that DoD needs to maintain readiness, meet procurement needs, transform the Armed Forces and continue the Global War on Terrorism.

The Senate is already making significant investment in our Guard and Reserve forces. In the fiscal year 2004 Defense Appropriation bill, we provided: $15.1 billion for pay and allowances, $14.3 billion in Operation and Maintenance funding for training, education and support, and about $2.5 billion for National Guard and Reserve Equipment--in total, an investment of about $31.9 billion for the Guard and Reserve.

A substantial portion of this investment is within the active component accounts for equipment and weapons that go directly to our Guard and Reserve forces. These items include: HUMMWVs, LITENING Targeting Pods for Aircraft, Construction Equipment, Heavy Trucks, and Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures to defeat shoulder fired missiles--LAIRCM.

If the proposed amendment is adopted, there should be great concern that this enhanced entitlement program will come at the expense of other Guard and Reserve requirements for training and equipping the force.

The chairman's bill already offers several permanent provisions to enhance the medical readiness and ensure continuity of care for reserve members and their families, including a provision that provides the opportunity for Reserve members and their employers to participate in TRICARE while the member is in a non-active duty status--a cost shared by the Reserve member and his or her employer.

The chairman's bill also provides for a demonstration program to determine the need for, and feasibility of providing TRICARE benefits to members of the Ready Reserve who are eligible for unemployment compensation or ineligible for employer-provided health care coverage.

In a September 2003 report, GAO found that DoD data does not identify a need to offer TRICARE to reservists and their families when members are not on active duty. Many of the unknown factors include: the effect on recruiting and retention, the impact on active duty personnel, the impact on the TRICARE system and the military treatment facilities, and the number of reservists that might participate.

The proposed demonstration program and enhanced benefits included in the chairman's bill will clearly enhance the medical readiness and ensure continuity of care for reserve members and their families.

The Department of Defense and Congress should take the time to further study the appropriate level of health care benefits for our Guard and Reserve, and allow the enhanced benefits included in the chairman's bill to be implemented and studied before we commit to spending billions of dollars on a new entitlement program.

The Department is in the process of appointing an advisory committee on military compensation to review these types of issues. I believe it is prudent to conduct these studies before Congress acts on this legislation.

Due to the high cost of the proposal and because of the enhanced benefits already contained in the chairman's bill, I must urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Jose Buendia Balderas, Alicia Aranda De Buendia and Ana Laura Buendia Aranda, Mexican nationals who live in the Fresno area of California.

I have decided to introduce legislation on their behalf because I believe this family is deserving of an exception.

Firstly, an immigration judge has granted the family relief, only to have that decision overturned by the Board of Immigration Appeals. Immigration Judge Polly A. Webber heard that Jose Buendia and his wife, Alicia Aranda de Buendia, should be granted cancellations of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act. In her decision, Immigration Judge Webber stated that she felt that the Buendias 9-year-old son would face exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if the family was deported from the United States.

The immigration judge's decision was based on testimony taken from Jose and Alicia Buendia, as well as Alicia Buendia's sister, who is a lawful permanent resident. The immigration judge found that if the Buendia's son ``wanted to go to school in Mexico past sixth grade, he would have major obstacles in being able to do so, which the Court can only take as extreme hardship in terms of 2-hour transportation that may or may not be available, separation from parents, perhaps having to live in a strange environment with strange people, moving away from his relatives in the United States . . . being subjected to substandard health care, economic instability, and poor living conditions.''

Unfortunately, the Board of Immigration Appeals overturned the immigration judge's decision. In a one paragraph decision the Board of Immigration Appeals concluded ``that the respondent failed to establish the required hardship to his United States citizen son, who was age 9 at the time of the hearing.'' That one sentence was the basis for overturning an immigration judge's decision.

Secondly, Mr. Buendia attempted to legalize his immigration status but was not successful due to an unscrupulous lawyer and a misinterpretation by the Immigration and Naturalization Service concerning applicants eligibility to apply for legalization under the 19876 amnesty law.

Because Mr. Buendia has been in this country for so long, he qualified for legalization pursuant to the Immigration and Reform Control Act of 1986. Unfortunately his legalization application was never acted upon.

One reason it was not acted upon is because his attorney, Jose Velez, was convicted of fraudulently submitting legalization and Special Agricultural Worker applications. Because of the criminal conviction, all of Mr. Velez's applications were suspect. Although Mr Buendia's application under the legalization program was found not to contain any fraudulent documentation associated, here began his problems.

Mr. Buendia's legalization application was flagged under Operation Desert Deception, a large-scale investigation which targeted providers of fraudulent applicants and documentation under the legalization and Special Agricultural Workers program. Dozens of people, including INS officers, were convicted of legalization fraud, bribery or tax evasion. At the time of filing Mr. Buendia's application with the Immigration and Naturalization Service the attorney, Jose Velez, was under investigation.

Although Mr. Buendia qualified for legalization because he arrived in the United States prior to January 1, 1982 he was not able to attend his interview in 1990 due to the investigation into his attorney.

Thirdly, it took the Immigration and Naturalization Service nearly 7 years to make a finding concerning his case. He was originally scheduled to be interviewed in June of 1990 on his application for legalization. The official Memo to File by the Immigration and Naturalization Service determining Mr. Buendia's application contained no fraudulent information was not posted until January 1997.

Fourthly, in the intervening years another problem arose. An interpretation by the Immigration and Naturalization Service as to the application of the law to legalization cases such as Mr. Buendia's. Because Mr. Buendia departed the United States in 1987 to marry his wife in Mexico, the Immigration and Naturalization Service stated he was no longer eligible for legalization when it again reviewed his application in 1997. This issue was litigated in CSS v. Meese and Mr. Buendia was a class member in this lawsuit. Unfortunately this lawsuit provide unhelpful to Mr. Buendia because the end result of the litigation was a much more limited class of eligible applicants.

Finally, and of substantial importance, this family has been here for 17 years and built a life here. The Buendias own property, are hard workers, are community minded and have two children in school--one of whom is a U.S. citizen.

Mr. Buendia is a valued employee of Bone Construction. He has been employed by this cement company for the past 5 years. He has proven himself, rising to become a lead foreman. His employer, Timothy Bone, says Mr. Buendia is a ``reliable, hardworking and conscientious'' employee.

Mr. Buendia has an exemplary work history. From 1981 to 1989 he worked for Ascension Hernandez as a landscaper in League City, TX. Thereafter he moved to Las Vegas, NV where he continued to work in landscaping. In 1990 he and his family settled in Reedly, CA where he began working in construction. Knowing nothing about construction, having a background in landscaping, Mr. Buendia was disciplined and persistent in his training and is now a lead foreman for a cement construction company. Mr. Buendia is such a hard worker that he even has his own cement company, which he works on weekends.

Alicia Buendia, Jose Buendia's wife, works as a seasonal fruit packer. Cliff Peters, the owner of Wildwood Orchards where Alicia Buendia worked during the 2003 season, says she is ``a hard worker, dependable, and consistently did a good job.'' He added that work would be available to her on an ongoing seasonal basis. Mrs. Buendia has worked as a seasonal fruit packer for several years.

Their daughter, Ana Laura, is in the 10th grade at Reedley High School where she has earned a 4.0 GPA which shows she is a highly motivated student. An important consideration in this case is that Ana Laura was brought to the United States by her parents when she was only 2 years old. Ana Laura, who will be 16 years old this year, has known no other country than the United States. She believes she is an American. But now she is told she must return to Mexico, a country she has never lived in.

The Buendia's son, Jose, who was born in the United States, is in 8th grade. Like his sister, this is the only country he knows.

Ana Laura and Jose's elementary school principal speaks highly of not only the children but the Buendias. This even though the children are now in high school. Mary Ann Carousso, principal, says in an e-mail to my office, ``I can tell you that I have rarely met 2 more active, concerned, supportive parents than Alica [sic] and Jose Buendia! . . . I don't think they ever missed a parent club meeting.'' Principal Carousso also says that ``Both Jose and Alicia continued to help at our school for several years after their youngest child had graduated . . . Jose, Sr. frequently hauled chairs across a dark parking lot at 9:00 p.m. at night following a parent club meeting . . . He often talked about what parents should be doing to help the school out so that excess money didn't have to be spent on simple construction projects. Alicia is a mom who just never says no to requests for help.'' With that type of endorsement it seems to me we should be thankful to have such involved parents in our communities.

This family has embraced the American dream, and I believe they should be allowed to continue to live in this country. If this legislation is approved, the Buendias will be able to continue to make significant contributions to their community and the United States. It is my hope that Congress passes this private legislation.

I ask unanimous consent numerous letters of support our office has received from members of the Reedley community be printed in the Record.