Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. This bipartisan support shows how important these funds are to our military. So underfunding BRAC MILCON by $3 billion, or even $1, sends a terrible message to our troops. It tears to shreds the bipartisan support involved with the BRAC process. Isn't it ironic, I would say to the Senator from Texas, and to you, Mr. President, and to my colleagues, that at a time when many of our colleagues in the House and Senate are saying, bring the troops home now, and everybody wishes we could, these same colleagues in the House--again, either through ignorance or incompetence or politics-- apparently do not think it is necessary to provide the facilities that will support these troops and their families. There is no other option, I say to the Senator from Texas and to my colleagues. I urge the majority leader to support our troops and their families by allowing a vote on this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I thank the Senator from Texas for yielding me this time for these many questions.

Mr. ROBERTS. If I could ask my distinguished colleague one more question? I am going to own up. The $365 million for Kansas in BRAC construction funding, there were no earmarks to that, no earmarks. That was requested by the Department of Defense and put in the President's budget for projects that are essential for our men and women in uniform when they come back from Iraq. There were three earmarks in there. They are gone and I understand that. I had one for a childcare center, Todd Tiahrt had one for lighting a ramp on a runway--I don't know what you are going to do if you don't have any lights on a runway when you land--and then there was another vehicle maintenance center at Fort Riley to take all the humvees and vehicles back from the desert and get them fixed up and replenished. They are gone. The rest of it, the $365 million that is at risk in Kansas, goes for projects in regard to BRAC construction. I don't know if this happened because of somebody who didn't know what was going on--sheer incompetence or ignorance--or this was political, under the banner that we are going to stop all the earmarks. This is not an earmark. As a matter of fact, let me ask the Senator from Texas a question. Is not the breach of taking $3.1 billion from military spending and putting it over into non-Federal spending--isn't that an earmark, a $3.1 billion earmark by itself?

Mr. ROBERTS. Let me go on with a little background about this because I want the Senator to understand how serious the situation is in Kansas. Should this $3.1 billion deficit be allowed to move forward and become law, soldiers in Kansas and many other States will suffer greatly. As I said before, $375 billion--I have been saying $365 billion. I am $10 billion short--$375 million worth of Kansas BRAC-related projects will be put at risk, and there are even more projects at risk in future years if the operational tempo of the Army is disrupted. I wish to be sure all of our colleagues understand exactly what this shortfall could mean--as it would be in Texas or Oklahoma or any State--what this would mean to our men and women in uniform and their families based in our respective States. The Combat Aviation Brigade, which is coming to Fort Riley, KS, as a result of the BRAC process, is in danger of losing $152 million for a complex that will house their barracks, their office space, their hangars, their fueling aprons, and their crash rescue fire station. This unit, this aviation brigade, is going to deploy to Iraq soon, and they need these facilities when they return. The commanding general at Fort Riley, General Carter Hamm, told me yesterday that if the aviation brigade comes home in 2008 to find these projects incomplete, they will have to live in dated facilities. What do I mean by dated facilities? We call them the white elephant barracks. They have holes in the walls. There are even rumors they have snakes underneath these barracks. The general said they will have to live in dated facilities that will provide worse living conditions than the brigade will find in Iraq. Let me repeat that statement to the Senator from Texas. I don't know if she has a dire situation like this. I will ask her to respond, for our colleagues. If this construction fails to move forward, members of the air brigade will return to housing at Fort Riley that will be below anything they have experienced in Iraq. Is this the way the Senate wants to treat these soldiers? Does the Senator from Texas have a similar situation, where men and women in uniform coming back will find their housing less than what it was in Iraq? I am incredulous.

Mr. ROBERTS. Let me ask the Senator another question and give a little background. Not only is the air brigade in danger of losing all of their support facilities--they need a new runway, specifically they need a $17 million runway. That is in danger of being cut from this $3.1 billion earmark. That is what I call it--a cut in an earmark going to nondefense programs. I find it unacceptable to move these people and then inadequately support them when they return home. Fort Riley is also in danger of losing an $87 million division headquarters, a sustainment brigade headquarters, to support another group of soldiers who will be returning from their current deployment in Iraq. If these facilities are not done by the time they return, they will be required to live in trailers, modular buildings. That is not acceptable. These soldiers are already sacrificing for the Nation. I refuse to ask them to also sacrifice when they return home from a deployment. Let me mention something else to the Senator. As a result of the BRAC process, nearly 11,000 soldiers and their families have already begun moving back to Fort Riley. This is unprecedented growth. I know at Fort Bliss the situation is somewhat similar. But Fort Riley does not have the support facilities to ensure these soldiers and families have full access to health, dental, and childcare. Let me ask the Senator from Texas another question, if I could have her attention. At Fort Riley we do not have the facilities to ensure these 11,000 soldiers and their families full access to health, dental, and childcare. Is there a similar situation in Texas?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I truly appreciate the response of the Senator from Texas. The reason I ask that is we are losing a $17.5 million health and dental clinic and a $5.7 million child development center, which will make an enormous difference in the quality of life in regards to the soldiers coming back. There is another project I want to mention, and the Senator has brought it up. We need a $27 million battle command training center. What is that all about? That is 4,000 people going through that center which is going to be improved, who are going immediately to Iraq to serve under General Petraeus to see if that mission can work, and they are following the doctrine General Petraeus laid down at Fort Leavenworth, KS, which is the intellectual center of the Army. This center is necessary for training command, control, and communications functions that are critical to the training of the brigade and division staff. If you don't want to have them go to Iraq, rest assured they need the training to basically have them prepared for any kind of national security threat in the future. Another Kansas project in jeopardy of losing funding that is of deep concern to me and should be of deep concern to the Army is the joint regional correctional facility at Fort Leavenworth. This is a little different. I don't know if the Senator has something like this, but I would ask the Senator a question. We need to build a joint regional correctional facility to house prisoners from around the Nation who are moved to Kansas. Currently, the Army is stretched to its limit. It needs these new beds for prisoners, and as the general told me, there is no place to put them. The Acting Commanding General at Fort Leavenworth, BG Mark O'Neill, told me yesterday, add to the equation that the facility is underfunded at $68 million--they need $95 million at a bare minimum. What do we do with the prisoners? That is $27 million more than was even budgeted. So the House is saying they will receive zip, nada, zero. Now, that is a correctional facility. I know it doesn't compare to the readiness problem, but with more prisoners and no place to put them, what are we going to do? That is a real problem. I want to give you some good news, and I am going to ask the Senator if she has a similar situation in Texas. Kansas leaders share my concern. Last night, our Governor Sebelius's Military Council passed a unanimous resolution supporting our efforts to bring this amendment before the Senate. I ask unanimous consent the letter of support be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I do have a question, and it involves what I believe to be an utter failing by Congress on behalf of our Nation's military men and women. My question to my colleague from Texas is this. I know in Kansas we are at risk of losing $365 million in regard to BRAC construction. My question would be to the Senator whether the same thing is true in Texas. I think, probably to put it in perspective, I need to get a little background information so the Senator could reply. That brings attention to why I am bringing a question to the distinguished Senator and why I wished to take the floor for 15 minutes. I hope we don't get into an objection. I certainly have no problem with Senator Kennedy speaking on any subject. I think he does that very well--and often. Basically, let me say, with apologies to the Lizzie Borden family, that: The Democrat House took a continuing resolution axe, and gave the military 40 whacks, and when they saw what they had done, then they gave Kansas 41. I don't think that is right. I am not here to speak about our military presence in Iraq. We have moved away from the debate on our presence in Iraq. We must now address the issue of support for our troops at home, and that is why I am going to ask the Senator a question, as soon as I give the background in regard to the question I have. As we have heard some of my colleagues already state today, we are in danger of underfunding military construction associated with BRAC by over $3 billion--actually it is $3.1 billion. Should the Senate let this occur, we will have failed our Nation's soldiers and their families. Why did this occur? Because there was $6 billion within the military budget, within the Department of Defense, who wanted $6 billion for BRAC construction. Is that not correct, I ask my distinguished friend?

Mr. ROBERTS. Basically, if I understand the Senator, we are down to $2.88 billion, which means if we had a whole pie and there were six slices, now we are down to less than three. And somehow or other the Department of Defense has to spread that money for BRAC construction to these other projects? That is going to be extremely difficult. I am trying to figure out why on Earth the House acted in such a fashion. I think it is, if I read the press about this--and I ask the Senator if she would agree--it is that under the banner of ``earmark reform,'' there was at least a theory, by some, that all of the money in the $6 billion was somehow earmarks. I ask another question. The $3.1 billion is the first time in my memory where we have had a breach in the agreement to say we are not going to fund nondefense programs--which are very meritorious and should stand on their own right, and I support many of them--out of the military budget. I can't remember when we have done that.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I yield the 10 minutes 23 seconds to my colleague and my friend, Senator Thune.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, last Friday I had the privilege of attending and speaking before a ``Farewell Dinner'' in honor of LTG David Petraeus at the Command and Staff College of the U.S. Army at Fort Leavenworth, KS. To say the least, it was quite an evening of tribute in behalf of the general and his wife, who has become admired and beloved serving as the Commanding General of the Army's Intellectual Center. I estimate there were around 250 officers and their wives and many from the Leavenworth community to pay tribute to General and Mrs. Petraeus, to wish them well, and to express pride and confidence in the general's immediate mission. He left for Iraq this past Monday, 2 days ago. Throughout the evening I had the opportunity to again visit with David Petraeus, his feelings about his new mission, his impressive knowledge with regard to the war in Iraq, the history of the region, and his understanding with regard to the nature of past wars of insurgency and the insurgency we face in Iraq. While at the Command and Staff school, he wrote the Army's new manual on counterterrorism. Let me say as a former marine who helped write a similar manual years ago for the U.S. Marine Corps, I find this man unique in his knowledge and his command ability. I made a few remarks at the dinner, and being a Senator, why, the remarks turned into a speech with some additional strongly held beliefs that I had penciled out in addition to my prepared remarks in behalf of General and Mrs. Petraeus. I thought twice about saying some very frank and candid views, but as everybody knows, marines don't hold back. So concluding my comments, I was glad I said what I said in that virtually everybody in the room--all 250--told me that I had said what they could not say. Those who wear their officer rank on their shoulders or their enlisted stripes on their sleeves in most cases do not comment on policy decisions or politics no matter how strongly they feel. They follow orders and they serve their country. I feel somewhat the same trepidation today. However, I believe my remarks to the general, his officer corps, veterans of previous wars, are dead on to the issue we face in this debate that we have been talking about here on the floor of the Senate. Before I express my views, I would stress I regret that we are at a stalemate in this body allegedly debating the issue of vital national security, and I think most in the Senate wish we could do just that and do it with comity, cooperation and, yes, in bipartisan fashion. The American people, who are concerned and frustrated and angry about the war, would certainly appreciate that, but that is not the case. This issue is wrapped around a partisan and political axle procedure. My friends across the aisle insist that we debate and vote on one of the three nonbinding resolutions regarding the war in Iraq, and only that resolution. They wanted to debate and vote on the Warner resolution and call it a day. The Warner resolution supports the troops but not the mission. Let me repeat that: It supports the troops but not the mission. That is a most unique position, to say the least, and that is about as far as my colleagues across the aisle wish to wade in the waters of withdrawal at this particular time. I also mention it might be helpful if we could consider the Feingold resolution. Senator Feingold's resolution actually does something and should be considered in the Senate, as well. Others wish to debate and vote upon the McCain resolution and the Gregg resolution, but we are being denied that opportunity. Now, to those in the press--of which I see none--those covering this debate within the media, how on Earth can you describe this situation by writing headlines in 15-second news sound bites, stating Republicans had voted to stifle debate on the war? Yes, let's debate and vote on the Warner resolution. That is entirely proper and right. But let's also debate and vote on resolutions offered by Senators McCain and Gregg and, perhaps, Feingold. By the way, I intend to vote for McCain and Gregg if I get the chance. I do not share the resolution in regard to Senator Feingold, but I defend his honor to introduce it and to debate it. We are not stifling or shutting down debate. They are. Hello up there. Is there any way you can discern that? I can help you. I majored in journalism. I used to be a newspaper editor. This is like playing baseball with one strike and you are out. What happened to my other two strikes? Well, sorry, back to the dugout. We are going to go to the continuing resolution. We run this ball game. In any case, in my remarks last Friday at Fort Leavenworth, I said to General Petreaus and the crowd that was assembled in his honor: Throughout our history as a Nation there have been numerous times when a Commander in Chief badly needed a Commanding General with keen intellect and raw courage. However, I do not think that it is a slight exaggeration to suggest the last time one was this badly needed was 144 years ago, the year 1853, when President Lincoln covered General Grant. There are other historical allegories of tremendous consequence. General Washington selected Nathaniel Green at a crucial time in our Revolutionary War. Mr. Green was a blacksmith's assistant. There was no understanding of rank at this time. And he reputedly stuttered badly. He must have led by example. As most military historians know, Grant was discharged from the Army for drinking. He went back home to Illinois. He failed in farming. And he failed in running a mercantile store. Four months into the war, he joined the Illinois Volunteer Regiment, was reinstalled as an officer. Lincoln chose Grant over many, many others. As an aside, Sherman was a good friend of Grant and was discharged for ``insanity.'' When he came back to the Army, he made a famous remark about his friend: ``He was with me when I was insane and I was with him when he was drunk.'' Then, of course, there was Ike. Selected by General Marshall and agreed to by Franklin Roosevelt, he was picked due to his particular talent of getting people, some with tremendous egos, to come together in common cause. Eisenhower was picked over 30 to 40 senior officers. Then, just as now, our Nation stands at a critical crossroads. Now, just as then, the freedom of many thousands of people is at stake. Also at stake is the safety and security of the United States of America. Now, remember, these remarks came at a dinner for General Petreaus at the U.S. Army Command and Staff College at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas. So I said to the general: General Petreaus, you and I have not been personally acquainted over a long period of years. Yet in our relatively short span of time I have come to know you well. I have had many stimulating and enjoyable conversations with you over a wide range of issues--Lawrence of Arabia, the British experience in Iraq--so I know full well you are exactly the right man for the job at the right time. Our brave young men and women in uniform deserve nothing but the very best leadership, and they are getting it with General Petreaus. I told him: You have captured America's imagination and enter this job with an enormous reservoir of goodwill. However, it is a paradox of enormous irony that the Senate confirmed General Petreaus without a dissenting vote--not one--a vote of confidence unique given today's controversy, turmoil, and times. Yet, at the same time, the same Senators who give you their vote of confidence are now in the business of proposing what I call ``confetti resolutions,'' supporting you and the troops but not the mission you are about to undertake. That, to me, is unprecedented for the Senate and, to me, it is astounding. These resolutions are nonbinding. They have no legislative impact. They are the so-called sense-of-the-Senate resolutions--meaningless except for the message you wish to send to the Executive and the folks back home or for whatever purpose you might have a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. With all due respect, we have crossed the Rubicon with regard to sending mixed messages to our allies, our troops, the American people, the media, and, yes, our adversaries. Don't forget our adversaries. Words have consequences. Rest assured, unlike some of my colleagues, our adversaries will read every word and try to figure out and analyze each sentence of these resolutions. And I suspect they will scratch their heads and try to discern the sense and the reading of a resolution that states support for the troops and our new commander with new rules of engagement with a limited timeframe for achieving and reporting benchmarks of progress but that opposes the mission. That mixed message should cause quite a bit of head scratching among the estimated 31 terrorist organizations we have planning various attacks around the world. However, my real concern is that the Senate is not considering or even talking about the probable consequences of these actions, let alone our responsibilities should they happen. I make it clear, I don't question the intent, purpose, or patriotism of any Senator, regardless of the resolution, but I do question judgment and the law of unintended effects. Bluntly put, with all of this debate with regard to nonbinding resolutions, we appear like lemmings, splashing in a sea of public concern, frustration, and anger over the war in Iraq. I understand that. In this regard, I should stress, I do not know of anybody in this Senate or the House of Representatives or anyone in America who does not want our troops home at the earliest possible date, and stability in Iraq, if possible. That is not the issue. When all of this confetti settles--and it is settling, apparently, because we are going to a continuing resolution and we will not have a vote on any of the resolutions--the end result of all this frenzy will be: General, you and the troops have our solid support, but we don't support your mission. However, press on, and good luck. What kind of message is that? This is not a profile in courage. This is not the Senate's finest hour. If we are going to debate and vote on nonbinding resolutions, let's at least consider resolutions that will send a clear message or that can be of useful purpose. In that regard, we should consider the McCain resolution that lists benchmarks of progress, that General Petreaus has told me would be useful in his discussions with Prime Minister Maliki, certainly the Gregg resolution that supports funding for our troops in harm's way. But that is the killer in this debate because my colleagues across the aisle do not want to vote on the Gregg resolution. Now we are not going to vote on any resolution. The only thing we voted on was cloture. As a matter of fact, I think we should vote on a resolution, as I said before, proposed by Senator Feingold, a resolution that certainly does something. I do not agree with his resolution, but he is at least forthright and has the courage and sends a clear message. As the former chairman of the Intelligence Committee in the Senate, let me stress what has not happened in the Congress or the media and has received very little public discussion regarding this challenge that we face in Iraq. No one is talking about the consequences of what will happen if we simply withdraw. And we may just do that because I do not believe this war can or should be sustained if we do not see progress in the next 6 months. I would also like to point out that most of the time deadlines for withdrawal that have been proposed or are in the nonbinding resolutions mirror exactly the same time period that General Petreaus told the Committee on Armed Services he would follow in reporting whether this new effort is making measurable progress along the lines of the benchmarks within the McCain resolution. The obvious question is, Who can make a better judgment? Who can better make that judgment, General Petreaus, in theater, or Senators conducting theater? We have not discussed the difficult policy decisions that will confront us if it becomes necessary to withdraw or even how to withdraw. The reality is, what will we do when certain consequences take place? These are the possible, if not probable, consequences we should be confronting, debating, and explaining to the American people and the media, even if some have a deaf ear. First, a dramatic increase in sectarian violence quickly escalating to a civil war, not the civil war that people say exists today but a real civil war and a humanitarian disaster far more devastating than what is happening now; Shia versus Shia, Sunni versus Sunni, Shia versus Sunni. What do we do? Second, given a civil war and a struggle for control, we can expect an incursion of Sunni troops from other Middle Eastern countries to prevent an Iranian takeover of Iraq and the very real possibility of an Iraq led by Muqtada al-Sadr whose street appeal will endanger their own governments. When that happens, the war becomes regional. What do we do? Third, we can expect an Iraq dominated by Iran, thus completing a Shia crescent with Iran and Iraq and Syria and Lebanon--and Lebanon is going through its own problems, to say the least. Today, countries such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt are talking about building their own nuclear programs, given Iran's nuclear ambitions and their progress. Iran just refused inspectors from the IAEA. With the possibility of Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims each working to achieve nuclear capability and weapons, what does Israel do? What do we do? Fourth, Iraq will become a safe haven for terrorists. This time, it is for real. No, not the 2002 NIE, National Intelligence Estimate, that we all agree was an egregious error. What do we do? Fifth, in their eyes, with defeat of the ``Great Satan'' only months away--a clear signal by this body and perhaps inevitable--terrorists around the world are already emboldened, waiting us out and planning more attacks. That is, of course, if you believe what they say. So what do we do? Sixth, we can expect a perceived, if not real, lack of American resolve in the eyes of adversaries and potential adversaries around the world, resulting in additional national security threats. Read Putin and Belarus; Kim Jong Il, with his penchant for missile launches on the Fourth of July; read Hugo Chavez--the Southern Hemisphere's new Castro--nationalizing his oil production and directly involved in five different countries. What about American resolve? What do we do? I realize in today's climate the obvious answer to ``What do we do?'' is simply to blame President Bush. But the point is that globally and over the long term, this is not a Bush issue or a Democratic or Republican issue or even how you feel about Iraq or the views of the so-called international community. Even as we argue about whether we debate and vote on one resolution or three--or apparently just have a vote on cloture and say that is the end of it--terrorist organizations and their second-generation affiliates--guided and inspired--are plotting attacks against the United States and throughout the world, even as I speak. It is obvious we cannot really sustain the status quo in Iraq. But while we debate how to proceed, they are not giving up. Now, given the fact there were at least five successful attacks killing Americans--and others that, thank God, were not successful-- before President Bush came to office and before military action in Iraq and given the fact that this threat will face the next President--yes, the next President--and future world leaders, surely, surely we can figure out it makes no sense to fight each other when the terrorists, then and now and in the future, do not kill according to party affiliation, nationality, race, age, or gender. If you were on one of those planes the terrorists were planning to send--nine of them--over the Atlantic to American cities, and they went down and exploded in an American city or simply went down in the ocean, it would not make any difference if you were Democratic, Republican, liberal, conservative, or anything--you would be dead. It would not make any difference. We do not need a Republican approach to national security and the war. We do not need a Democratic approach to national security and the war. We need an American approach to our national security and the war and our individual freedoms. This is a time to engage in honest dialog to work together and think through and agree on strategy that will defeat our enemies and make the American people safe--look at those consequences of our actions that we have not even discussed on what may happen--and, yes, bring our troops home but in a way that we do not have to send them back. My colleagues, I started my remarks by saying the majority of these comments came from a speech I gave at the dinner honoring GEN David Petraeus and his wife Holly at our Leavenworth Command and Staff College in Kansas last Friday prior to David Petraeus leaving for Iraq this Monday. I closed those remarks by saying I was confident that under his leadership, this new mission with new rules of engagement, our chances of success were greater because failure is not in David Petraeus. It never has and it never will be. So America's destiny and God's blessings are riding on the shoulders of GEN David Petraeus. And I closed by saying I was proud to offer him my full support and to call him a friend. So I say to the leadership, with all due respect, and to all of my colleagues, let us end this business of nonbinding resolutions and get these confetti resolutions behind us. Vote on all four. Vote on all three. But let's not have the headlines that Republicans are trying to shut down debate on Iraq. That is just not the case. We should vote in regard to the Warner resolution, the McCain resolution, the Gregg resolution, and as far as I am concerned the Feingold resolution, if we must. We have all had a chance now to discuss the war. We need to vote on the three resolutions--maybe four--and come together with bipartisan commitment--a difficult and perhaps impossible task but a task that must be undertaken for the sake of our national security. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts and I thank the Presiding Officer and I thank my colleagues to my right who, hopefully, will take their conversation from the floor of the Senate. Unfortunately, small businesses generally do not have the resources required to start up and support a childcare center like happens in many areas in urban America and big cities. When I came to the Senate in 1997, one of the first bills I introduced was the Small Business Child Care Act, which authorized a short-term flexible grant as a program to encourage small businesses to work together or with other local childcare agencies to provide childcare services for their employees. This amendment includes the bipartisan language of the Small Business Child Care Act that was passed out of the HELP Committee in August of 2005 as part of the larger childcare and development block grant. Under the amendment, small businesses are eligible for grants up to $500,000 for startup costs and training and scholarships and other related activities, with priority given to grantees who work with other small businesses or local childcare organizations. These grants all have a matching requirement which encourages self-sustaining facilities that will go on well after the program ends. In many small Kansas towns, childcare facilities can be very scarce, as I have said before. This amendment would alleviate the strain on working families who often have to close the door on the opportunity to be a double-income family because of the lack of childcare options in their communities. When I first ran for the House back in 1980, I was going door to door in Dodge City. I was in south Dodge and I knocked on a door and a young lady came to the door and two children were immediately right there with her. I handed her a brochure, and I said: I am running for Congress. What can I do for you? Is there anything I can do for you as a candidate? She looked at me with the two kids behind her--she was obviously a single mother--and she said: Mr. Roberts, it's your world, I'm just living in it. That made a big impression on me. I said: What do you need more than anything else? She said: If there could be a possibility that there could be any childcare for these two children, I could go to work. I could go back to work. But that was not the case at that particular time. Then I promised myself that we would try our very best so that in a small community with a bank, the implement dealer, and, say, a restaurant, they could come together, and with these kinds of grants offer affordable childcare. So I am very hopeful we can get this amendment passed. It is a small change that will make a big difference in the lives of many employees and employers who see a need for childcare in their communities. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment.

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I say to the Senator from Connecticut, I thank him very much for his comments. He has been absolutely tenacious, as described by the Senator from Wyoming. I can remember, it was about, what, 5, 6, 7 years ago, that we all were over, on a cold day, at the childcare center that is offered for employees on Capitol Hill over by the Hart building. We had a press conference. Senator Kennedy was there, I was there, Senator Dodd was there, I think Senator Jeffords was there at that time. That was 4 or 5 years ago. So we should be moving on these things. I pledge my support to see what we can do down the road. I rise to call up Senate amendment 102.

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I rise today to offer amendment No. 102. As we debate the issue of minimum wage, we can't forget the impact on the employers who hire these minimum wage workers. Small businesses pay 45 percent of the payroll in the United States, and they have created 60 to 80 percent of new jobs over the last decade. In my home State of Kansas, small businesses actually employ the brunt of hard-working families. I often hear from these employers who agree with their workers that they deserve a fair wage for a fair day's work, but they admit, however, that they struggle to offer the basic benefits to their employees such as childcare. With a mandated increase in the minimum wage, that struggle will only grow. So affordable childcare oftentimes becomes a factor in keeping a job for many Americans in small communities such as Dodge City, my hometown, and other very similar communities. Childcare facilities are very scarce, limiting the possibilities for families to earn----

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I am going to address a decision that has just been announced by FEMA regarding emergency assistance to the citizens of my State of Kansas. I rise today to thank all those who have aided thousands and thousands of Kansans stranded by snow and ice over the course of the past few weeks. I want to give them some much needed good news. First, let us remember the situation. Late last month, a large winter storm spread over 30 inches of very heavy snow and up to 3 inches of ice on top of that over much of my State. Fifteen-foot drifts were very common in western Kansas. At the time, 65,000 Kansans were without power. Snow blocked all major roadways, and many impacted Kansans, many people in small communities, were able to survive only because their friends and neighbors pitched in to help each other. I came to the Chamber in the aftermath of the storm with charts showing the damage--11,000 utility poles down, transmission lines down--and some very pertinent charts in regard to stranded livestock. I was worried about the state of assistance in our country out on the High Plains. Many financial and economic livelihoods were in danger. In Kansas, farmers remained unable to reach their herds of cattle and keep them fed and watered. Quite frankly, I was a little worried about the Federal response. I know when we have disasters, FEMA responds as best they possibly can. We have heard a lot about Katrina and forest fires and floods and other situations, but here we had a record disaster in regard to a blizzard and ice in communities that were isolated. I was a little concerned about it. In the midst of this record destruction, let me say that the National Guard, the Department of Transportation, local emergency responders, nonprofit organizations, and regional FEMA representatives really stepped to the plate. Frankly, the swift and selfless response of so many has been almost overwhelming. Almost immediately, in the wake of this storm, our Governor, Kathleen Sebelius, declared a state of emergency, and we all got to work. The National Guard, at the direction of GEN Tod Bunting, sprung to action, and they delivered bales of hay and generators to those with stranded cattle and also aided in emergency services with helicopters and any other equipment that would work under the circumstances. The Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and the Association of General Contractors from the private sector also proved vital in providing Kansans simply a place to stay warm. I must particularly thank the State's emergency management officials, working with the regional FEMA office, for the countless hours they worked to expedite the requests for public assistance. FEMA workers get a lot of brickbat when things get very tough and complicated and difficult. This time, they certainly deserve a great deal of credit. Over the course of the past few weeks, local governments and certain nonprofits serving Kansans needed their Federal Government desperately, and the cry for help was answered. But the best news came a few moments ago when I received a call from the FEMA office here in Washington. I received notice that all remaining categories of public assistance have been approved for the State of Kansas. This is the news we have been waiting for. This gives the State reimbursement for a large portion of the $360 million in damage that has been documented to date. It includes such vital assistance for public buildings and utility and road repair. Mr. President, we believe in self-help in Kansas, and most of the time we can handle our own problems. But in working through this disaster, we desperately needed Federal help. Federal help came, and Federal help came in record time, and it came because of the cooperation of local and State and national organizations--primarily FEMA--and it was a situation where everybody worked together and got the job done. On this particular occasion, let me say thank you to all of those people who worked so hard and all of the people in Kansas whom I am so proud to represent. I look forward to the receipt of this assistance and the continued support that our communities in Kansas have seen from all levels of government. I yield the floor, and I yield my time back to the Senator from West Virginia. I thank him for allowing me to make this statement.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I believe I can get my remarks done in 5 or 6 minutes.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to call your attention to what can only be described as a major disaster in my home State of Kansas and surrounding States--certainly the State represented by the distinguished Presiding Officer--along with New Mexico and eastern Colorado, more especially in western Kansas. In the last days of December, a large winter storm spread over 30 inches of heavy snow and up to 3 inches of ice in much of my State of Kansas. As you can see from this picture of what used to be a row of electric towers--a very idyllic scene in Kansas, where we produce the food and fiber this Nation needs--and then from the following picture--I will take this picture down and basically show you what happened after the blizzard--of what remains, this storm has caused overwhelming destruction all throughout the region. There are 21 towers in this condition, as shown in the picture. These are major towers of power, of electrical grid that have been destroyed all across my State of Kansas, more especially in the western part. As a result, 15-foot snowdrifts closed highways and left over 60,000 customers without power. Over 10,000 downed utility poles litter the area. We did not get that picture blown up in time, but it is a marvelous picture of a road--you can see the snow here--that goes by with a whole bunch of telephone poles snapped off like matchsticks. And that has happened all throughout that area. Residents who are lucky enough to have generators are now paying up to $50 a day for diesel fuel to simply generate electricity to stay warm, to exist. What is more, the storm hit one of the largest concentrations of livestock in the State. Let me put up a chart that is going to be a little difficult to discern from the standpoint of what it portrays. For reasons you can understand when you look at this image, we have received numerous reports of animals like this calf--yes, this is a calf. You can see the calf's nose, and one eye here and one eye here. We do not know whether the calf made it, in that our producers are working overtime, our ranchers are working overtime to get food to their livestock herds. But in this particular instance, you can see what happens to an animal that is caught in these kinds of conditions-- a rather sad scene, to say the least. Either they succumb to a lack of food or a lack of water or they suffer extreme weight loss. (Ms. STABENOW assumed the Chair.)

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, what happens, as you well know, coming from the State you represent, is that you will have a thaw, but the thaw will only involve a couple of inches, and it turns to ice, and then below that mud. So if you have any livestock there, they are stuck. You could even put a bale of hay right next to them and they could not eat it. So many economic livelihoods are in danger if Kansas farmers are unable to reach their herds of cattle or keep them fed. I take great pride in reporting that all across our State our producers are doing the very best they can under very difficult circumstances. In light of the overwhelming destruction this storm has thrust on our State, 44 counties were immediately declared states of disaster. This comes as no surprise to those of us who have seen the damage this storm has caused or those of us who have gone through previous storms. I remember the one in 1973, which caused great damage, and we had to use Air Force planes with bales of hay to keep the livestock herds, at least to the extent they could be, from dying. However, what comes as a surprise to myself and many others is that FEMA has been unable to fully respond to our vital requests for assistance. Last night, the President issued a major disaster declaration for Kansas, allowing the State access to two--two--of the seven--that is important: Two of the seven--major types of public assistance. However, he agreed with me, when I showed the President these images of our State a moment ago at the White House that the damage in the western part of our State goes far beyond something called ``debris removal'' and ``emergency protective services.'' Furthermore, we have been told that debris removal does not cover the removal of snow. Now, wait a minute. If you are in western Kansas or you are out on the high plains and you have 30 inches of snow and 15- foot snowdrifts but you cannot remove the snow because it cannot be categorized as debris, how on Earth can you reach the debris that is underneath the snow? That seems to be a quandary or a question that is rather ridiculous under the circumstances. While I understand that Federal officials must confirm a record or near-record amount of snow in order to expend Federal funds--I understand that--30 inches of snow certainly covers any other debris one could hope to clear, including the 15-foot drifts. The bottom line is that the State of Kansas needs its Federal Government to assist in restoring power and clearing massive amounts of snow. And they need this assistance immediately--not next week, next month, or next year. I have been told that meetings this week will determine whether Kansas qualifies for the remaining categories of public assistance. You remember that picture of the transformer, which I will put back up--and I will cover the picture of this poor calf--these are the kinds of things where we have to have public assistance; otherwise, you have local, small generators and people paying $50 a day for diesel fuel just to keep warm. That is the kind of category of public assistance--I am not going to list all of them--we desperately need. I can only ask on behalf of Kansans, who will have been stuck in the snow for 2 weeks by the time these meetings occur, that these decisions be made sooner rather than later. I have been informed just this morning by our FEMA Director, Mr. David Paulison--who wants to be of all possible help--that much work remains to be done between the State and also our regional FEMA officials. I understand that. There are a lot of regulations. There are a lot of things Congress itself has put into the regulations in regard to FEMA help or State officials, that they must work through this. But the 850 people in Sharon Springs, Kansas, cannot afford to clear the 15-foot snowdrifts that are currently covering six blocks of Main Street. Their county of 1,500 people could not have known to budget for the 600 truckloads of snow they estimate it will take to clear just their Main Street, just that area. They estimate it would take that to do the job. They need their Federal Government's help, and they need their State and also regional FEMA help to expedite this process, which I understand is going to take place on Wednesday. Why it cannot take place before that I am not sure. And why the Weather Service cannot at least discern this was a major snow--a major snow of 30 inches and 15- foot drifts--is a little bit beyond me. We will keep working on that. As each day passes that FEMA is not able to issue the remaining categories of assistance--I am not blaming FEMA. I know there is a process. I am not blaming the State. I know there is a process. But the people of Saint Francis and the people of many other communities-- county seat communities, noncounty seat communities, very small communities--need the assistance now. I hope FEMA and our Government do not give the impression that it is entirely focused solely on large urban and suburban communities, or natural disasters that make the headlines, make the headlines, and make the headlines. Obviously, I am talking about hurricanes, I am talking about mudslides, I am talking about forest fires, I am talking about major disasters where FEMA does the best job they possibly can. We have come through a lot in the past sessions of Congress. So I am asking our State officials and our FEMA folks here in Washington and also on a regional level to prove this is not the case by quickly providing all available Federal resources to support this effort in our heartland. And again, let's do it this week. Let's not wait until next week and the week after and a month after. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer and yield the floor. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I understand we are in morning business with Members granted approximately 10 minutes apiece, if they so choose; is that correct?

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today I honor Ms. Joyce Woodburn's 35 years of dedicated service at the Central Intelligence Agency. Ms. Woodburn has had a long and distinguished Government career, and on January 2, 2007, she will bring to a close a career as a CIA staff officer that includes over 27 years in the CIA's Office of Congressional Affairs. Joyce began her extensive career as a secretary and rose to the rank of senior executive within the Agency. During her career, she has worked for 7 Presidents, 13 Directors of Central Intelligence, 2 Directors of the CIA, and the first Director of National Intelligence. Joyce's excellent work and professionalism is well known to us on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and she has been a linchpin in coordinating and supporting the CIA's relations with Congress over the last 27 years. Her calm and friendly diplomacy has certainly smoothed over many a bump in the CIA's relations with Congress. She has represented the CIA in Congress through some historic crises, including the ordeal of the American hostages in Iran, the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the bombings of the Embassy and Marine compounds in Beirut, the Iran-Contra scandal, the fall of the Soviet Union, Operation Desert Storm, Somalia, the bombings of our embassies in Africa, 9/11 and the hunt for Osama bin Laden, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the current tensions with Iran and North Korea. Joyce has been a tremendous help over the past 27 years in getting the members and staff of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence the information and briefings we need to do our work. Thank you for your service, Joyce, and we wish you a healthy and prosperous retirement.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today I honor Salvatore Ferro's 40 years of dedicated service at the Defense Intelligence Agency, DIA. ``Sal,'' who has worked for all 16 Directors of the DIA, will be retiring on January 3, 2007. He will be sorely missed by the Select Committee on Intelligence. Sal has had a long and distinguished Government career. Sal served with honor in the Army in the Vietnam War, working as an intelligence officer with the ``Phoenix'' program. After his discharge from the Army in 1969, Sal joined DIA, just 8 years after its establishment as an agency and went right back to Vietnam for a 1-year tour as a civilian intelligence officer. After finishing his service in Vietnam, Sal returned to the United States to work in DIA's Arlington Hall Station facility in northern Virginia. During the next decade, Mr. Ferro drew on his wartime experience and his analytical talents to work on issues related to American servicemen taken as prisoners of war or declared missing in action in Southeast Asia. In 1991, Sal moved over to DIA's Office for Congressional Affairs in the Pentagon. This is when our committee really came to know Sal. He has been an invaluable asset to the members and staff of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. He has been tenacious in getting answers to our many questions and requests for information. He has taken pride in being responsive and making sure that DIA consistently met our deadlines. More important, his professionalism, diplomatic skills, and amazingly positive personality have smoothed over countless ripples in DIA's relations with Congress. Ask any Intelligence Committee staffer who has dealt with Sal over the years, an they will tell you that he is not only a pleasure to work with, he is also a good friend. You can always count on Sal for a kind word and a ``happy Friday.'' Sal has supported the Intelligence Committee's oversight work on countless topics. Some of the most significant and time-consuming include the 9/11 Joint Inquiry, the review of the intelligence community's prewar intelligence assessments on Iraq, and the Able Danger review. I will always be most grateful to Sal for his tireless support over the years in my efforts to resolve the status of Navy pilot CAPT Scott Speicher, who has been missing since the first gulf war. Mr. Sal Ferro is a true national intelligence asset, and he has been one of the Defense Intelligence Agency's secret weapons. He will be missed. Thank you for your service, Sal, and don't be a stranger.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the valor and great sacrifice of the citizens in Frankfort, KS. Frankfort is a small town in northeast Kansas. It is a thriving rural community of approximately 855 people. In the early 1940s, just as today, Frankfort was teeming with good Americans, Americans who answered the call of duty and fought so that their fellow Americans could live in freedom. But that alone is not what makes Frankfort notable. Brave men and women from small towns, big cities, and everywhere in America have served our Nation in the Armed Forces. Many have made the ultimate sacrifice. What makes this town, then home to approximately 1,800 people, notable is the solemn fact that 32 brave men from Frankfort and the surrounding farmland gave their lives in World War II. Based on records from local county newspapers of that time, it is concluded that the Frankfort community lost more men in World War II than any other town of similar size. This fact imparts both a deep sense of pride for the bravery and commitment of these young Kansans and also sadness for the great loss of life that is inherent in times of war. During my years in public service, I have experienced many opportunities to meet some amazing people and hear the incredible stories that truly define America. This is exactly how I have come to learn of this incredible contribution to our Nation's security. Frank Benteman, a World War II Army veteran, shared this story. Mr. Benteman, now 80 years old, is from Frankfort and was part of this ``greatest generation'' who served. It was Mr. Benteman who continues to honor those who went before by remembering their sacrifice and honoring their memory. I am pleased to work along with Frank Benteman to honor the heroes of Frankfort, KS, by entering their names into the Congressional Record in recognition of their ultimate sacrifice to a grateful nation. The brave men from Frankfort, KS, who gave their lives in the great Second World War include Willard A. Backman, Fred Bentsen, Lloyd C. Blackney, Leland Cook, Melvin Cope, Elmer Crumpton, Kenneth DeWalt, Robert Emmingham, Victor Feldhausen, Peter Fiegener, William R. Gibson, Don Hockensmith, Jr., Dale C. Hooper, Milan E. Jester, Koester Johnston, Donald E. King, Vern F. Long, Weldon Maneval, Matt McKeon, Carl O. Nord, Aloysius Noud, Howard Olson, Paul A. Paden, Charles Poff, Charles L. Punteney, Theodore Rhodes, David L. Shyne, James Stoffel, Clifford Watson, Robert B. Welsh, Charles F. Zinn, and Munro Zoellner. Semper fi.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter dated November 16, 2006.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today I congratulate a Kansan, and a friend, Earl McVicker, whose hard work, perseverance, and dedication has earned him recognition by those in his profession. Last month, Earl, who started his banking career at a bank in a town of 400, was elected chairman of the American Bankers Association. I join his friends, family, and colleagues in extending my congratulations and best wishes to him during the upcoming year. Earl's career in the banking industry began shortly after his graduation from Kansas State University, home of the always optimistic and fighting Wildcats. Although Earl earned an engineering degree from K-State, he had taken a few business classes and a course on rural banking, which captured his interest. His first job was at the Bazine State Bank. Earl worked hard, learning the banking business from the ground up. His strong work ethic paid off, and he rose steadily in the banking industry, moving on to banks in Colorado and Kansas before becoming CEO of Central Bank and Trust, in Hutchinson, KS. By this time, Earl was looking for more than just another job at another bank. He was looking for the opportunity to make policy decisions, and he knew the only way to achieve that was to buy a bank. Well, Earl succeeded in this goal, in part, by doing something we should all take a lesson from. When he became CEO at CB&T, he made the decision that he would continue to live off the amount of his previous salary and save and invest the difference in order to buy CB&T stock. This self-discipline, along with some help from his parents and a loan from another bank, allowed Earl to continue buying stock in CB&T, eventually gaining majority ownership. Further, the loan that he took out, that he hoped to pay off in 10 years? He paid it off in 5. Earl acknowledges that he risked everything on this one venture, but it is certainly a risk that has paid off. Perhaps the quote that Earl has framed and hanging in his office best sums up what guides him. The quote, by President Calvin Coolidge, reads: ``Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan `press on' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.'' Earl's own hard work, persistence, and willingness to take risks gives him an understanding and an empathy for people who are looking to start and own their own business. His commitment to promoting entrepreneurship, his willingness to help individuals start a business, and his ability to recognize the potential of these individuals, even those who may not have business experience, makes him unique and reminds us all of the important role hometown banks play in a community. They understand the needs of the customers, their community, and know that their role in helping individuals and businesses succeed is vital to economic health. Now, I don't want to leave you with the impression that Earl is just another skilled businessman, although over the past 14 years, his private investment company, Central Financial Corp., has grown to include banks in a dozen States and has outperformed Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway, as well as the Dow and the S&P 500. In fact, Earl wears several hats, including a Stetson when he is out horseback riding with his wife Molly or helping out on his parent's farm near Ness City. And he's particularly fond of the motorcycle helmet that he wears when he takes his Harley for a ride up to Sturgis, SD. Maybe not what you expected from the incoming ABA chairman. Earl has reached a milestone in his career, but in this success, he has also helped others succeed in starting and growing their businesses and has taken an active role in helping communities like Hutchinson thrive. I am proud to call Earl a friend. I know he will approach his year as chairman of the ABA by expanding his ``commitment to community'' philosophy throughout the country. It is this commitment, working as a partner with his community, that has made him a leader in the banking profession.