To permit $68,500,000, as requested by the Missile Defense Agency of the Department of Defense, to be used for the construction of a test facility to support the Phased Adaptive Approach for missile defense in Europe, with an offset.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010--Continued

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set side so I may say a few words.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, let me begin, first, by thanking Chairman
Johnson and Senator Hutchison for their fine work in preparing this
measure before us. Similar to the other appropriations bills for fiscal
year 2010, this bill, which provides the necessary funding for military
construction and veterans programs, was prepared by the subcommittee on
a bipartisan basis.
I am very pleased to advise my colleagues in the Senate that the
committee endorsed the bill unanimously and forwarded this matter to
the Senate for consideration.
As my colleagues are aware, we are already more than 1 month into the
new fiscal year, and we simply need to complete our work on this
measure.
Moreover, Wednesday is Veterans Day. It would truly send the right
message to our veterans for the Senate to pass this bill before
November 11.
Again, I wish to commend the chairman and Senator Hutchison for their
fine work on this measure and urge its adoption.

[[Page S11269]]

Amendment No. 2754

Mr. President, I rise to discuss amendment No. 2754, which has been
cosponsored by Senators Johnson and Cochran, to reallocate unobligated
fiscal year 2009 military construction funding to support President
Obama's new European missile defense plan. The funding was appropriated
in last year's appropriations bill for the European missile defense
sites but can no longer be spent.
This amendment will enable the Missile Defense Agency to meet the
President's timelines for defending Europe and the United States sooner
against Iranian missiles.
I strongly endorse the President's European missile defense plan.
This new approach will enhance the protection of our allies in Europe,
U.S. forces and their families deployed abroad, and the U.S. homeland
from ballistic missile attack sooner than the previous program.
It is more robust and responsive to the increasingly pervasive short-
and medium-range missile threats and is adaptable to longer range
threats in the future. The new architecture focuses on using the proven
standard missile-3 on Aegis ships and on land, together with additional
sensor capability to provide more effective protection for ourselves
and our allies.
In order to meet the timelines set out by the President to deploy a
capability in Europe in the 2015 timeframe, General O'Reilly, Director
of the Missile Defense Agency, has requested the Congress to reprogram
$68.5 million to construct an Aegis ashore test facility at the Pacific
Missile Range Facility in Hawaii. This amendment responds to that
request.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from
General O'Reilly requesting this transfer of funds.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Department of Defense,

Missile Defense Agency,

Washington, DC, October 7, 2009.
Hon. Daniel Inouye,
Chairman, Committee on Appropriations,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to request your support for
reauthorization and reappropriation of $68.5 million of
unobligated FY2009 MILCON funds, previously appropriated for
deployment of missile defense capabilities in Europe, to
support near-term requirements for the President's new Phased
Adaptive Approach for missile defense in Europe.
Our top priority is the establishment of an Aegis Ashore
test facility which could also provide an operational
ballistic missile defense capability when needed. Due to its
strategic location and multi-dimensional testing
capabilities, the Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) in
Hawaii has been selected as the proposed site for this test
facility, and placement of a test launcher at this site could
also provide continuous protection for this region. Our goal
is to complete this project in time to support the first
flight test of the land-based Standard-Missile 3 interceptor
in FY2012, which would require construction funding to be
available for obligation in FY2010.
Your support to make these FY2009 MILCON funds available
for the Aegis Ashore test facility is essential if we are to
implement the President's new Phased Adaptive Approach in
time to counter the growing ballistic missile threat. I am
prepared to provide you with any additional information you
may require.
Thank you for consideration of this request and your
steadfast support for the defense of our Nation.
Sincerely,
Patrick J. O'Reilly,
Lieutenant General, USA Director.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, in the letter the general says that
establishing this test facility is his top priority for the President's
new plan for missile defense in Europe. He goes on to state:

Our goal is to complete this project in time to support the
first flight test of the land-based standard-missile 3
interceptor in FY 2012, which would require construction
funding to be available for obligation in FY 2010.

I offer this amendment with some reservation. It is critical to
getting missile defense to Europe sooner, but it circumvents the normal
order of business in the Senate under ordinary circumstances. This
project should have been authorized in the fiscal year 2010 National
Defense Authorization Act and then appropriated in the Military
Construction bill. I take that process seriously and wish to explain to
my colleagues the special circumstances under which I offer this
amendment.
President Obama publicly announced his European missile defense
strategy on September 17 of this year. This announcement came well
after the House and Senate Armed Services Committees began the
conference negotiation process.
In order to implement the President's new plan, General O'Reilly made
the request to Congress for an AEGIS ashore test facility on October 7,
the same day that the House and Senate completed the conference
agreement on the Defense authorization bill. Due to conflicts in
timing, the conferees were not able to consider this late request from
the administration. Thus, an amendment on the fiscal year 2010 Military
Construction appropriations bill is the best path to get the facility
started in order to meet the administration's timelines. If there was a
better way to proceed, I would do so. Unfortunately, these unusual
circumstances have put us in this situation.
The fiscal year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act provided
flexibility for the Missile Defense Agency to spend over $240 million
of research and development funding in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 to
purchase equipment associated with the AEGIS ashore test facility and
begin the development of the new European ballistic missile defense
architecture. The military construction funding is needed at this time
in conjunction with the research and development funding to begin
implementation of the European missile defense plan.
Let me also make clear that this amendment is not asking for
additional money. This funding is presently available. The Missile
Defense Agency has over $150 million in fiscal year 2009 unobligated
funds that were appropriated for the missile defense sites in the Czech
Republic and Poland that are no longer needed. This amendment would use
a portion of those funds to begin construction of the AEGIS ashore test
facility in fiscal year 2010.
Lastly, let me comment on the site chosen for the AEGIS ashore test
facility. According to the Missile Defense Agency, the Pacific Missile
Range Facility on the island of Kauai has been the center of excellence
for AEGIS ballistic missile defense testing for the last 12 years and
will continue in that regard for the next decade. Indeed, just 2 weeks
ago, the Pacific Missile Range Facility hosted the successful intercept
test of the Japanese AEGIS ballistic missile defense program. To date,
the Pacific Missile Range has supported 20 AEGIS tests. In addition,
PMRF also has a proud track record of testing the Missile Defense
Agency's Theater High Altitude Area Defense System, with five tests at
the range since 2007.
The Pacific Missile Range Facility is the world's largest
instrumented missile testing and training range. The Department of
Defense and the Missile Defense Agency, in particular, utilize this
range due to its relative isolation and ideal year-round climate and
encroachment-free environment. Furthermore, it is the only range in the
world where submarines, surface ships, aircraft, and space vehicles can
operate and be tracked simultaneously. For these reasons, the Missile
Defense Agency believes the Pacific Missile Range Facility is the ideal
location to support AEGIS ashore testing.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. If this test facility
does not get started in fiscal year 2010, the Missile Defense Agency
will not be able to meet the flight test scheduled to demonstrate AEGIS
ashore capability prior to the administration's proposed 2015
deployment date to Europe. It is a very important amendment.

Amendment No. 2754 to Amendment No. 2730

Madam President, I now call up amendment No. 2754 and ask for its
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The clerk will report the
amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], for himself, Mr.
Cochran, and Mr. Johnson, proposes an amendment numbered 2754
to amendment No. 2730.

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

[[Page S11270]]

(Purpose: To permit $68,500,000, as requested by the Missile Defense
Agency of the Department of Defense, to be used for the construction of
a test facility to support the Phased Adaptive Approach for missile
defense in Europe, with an offset)

On page 27, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
Sec. 128. (a)(1) The amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by this title under the heading ``Military
Construction, Defense-Wide'' is hereby increased by
$68,500,000, with the amount of such increase to remain
available until September 30, 2014.
(2) Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made available
by this title under the heading ``Military Construction,
Defense-Wide'', as increased by paragraph (1), $68,500,000
shall be available for the construction of an Aegis Ashore
Test Facility at the Pacific Missile Range Facility, Hawaii.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, such funds may be
obligated and expended to carry out planning and design and
construction not otherwise authorized by law.
(b) Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made available
by title I of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs
Appropriations Act, 2009 (division E of Public Law 110-329;
122 Stat. 3692) under the heading ``Military Construction,
Defense-Wide'' and available for the purpose of European
Ballistic Missile Defense program construction, $69,500,000
is hereby rescinded.

Mr. INOUYE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold the request for a
quorum call?
Mr. INOUYE. I set aside my request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to, No. 1, offer
an amendment, which I will do in 3 or 4 minutes, and then spend 3 or 4
minutes on that amendment and then ask unanimous consent for 15 minutes
to talk on the Executive Calendar as well as speak in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2757 to Amendment No. 2730

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask that the pending amendment be set
aside and that amendment No. 2757 be called up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an
amendment numbered 2757 to amendment No. 2730.

Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require public disclosure of certain reports)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. ___. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Act and except as provided in subsection (b), any report
required to be submitted by a Federal agency or department to
the Committee on Appropriations of either the Senate or the
House of Representatives in this Act shall be posted on the
public website of that agency upon receipt by the committee.
(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to a report if--
(1) the public posting of the report compromises national
security; or
(2) the report contains proprietary information.

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, this is a very straightforward
amendment. This is an amendment I have offered on all appropriations
bills to date. We passed it on Housing and Urban Development-
Transportation. We passed it on Energy and Water. We passed it on
Interior. We passed it on the Defense appropriations bill. It is an
amendment that says that the reports that are asked for in this
appropriations bill, unless there is reason to not yield to the people
of this country the information contained in that report for either
national security or defense purposes, that those studies will be made
available to the American citizens and the rest of the Senate.
Each appropriations bill, in proper fashion and by a good job by the
Appropriations Committee, asks for reports and reviews on how the money
is spent. All this amendment does is require that the reports that are
required to be submitted by a Federal agency in this act be posted on a
public Web site of that agency for all Members of Congress and all
Americans to see. There is an exception for reports that contain
classified or proprietary information.
In the House and Senate version of this bill, the following reports
are--I won't go through all of them--what action DOD and the State
Department have taken to encourage host countries to assume a greater
share of the defense burden--that is something that ought to be shared
with the American people; an annual report on operation and maintenance
expenditures for each individual general or flag officer quarters at
each of our bases around the country during the prior year; a report of
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on approved major construction
projects for which funds are not obligated within the timeframe
provided for in the act--in other words, to know what we are getting
ready to spend, what is obligated; a report detailing the current
planned use of property estimated to have greater than $1 million in
annual rental costs; a detailed report on how the $3 billion that has
already been appropriated for information technology projects at the
Veterans Administration' is spent, including operations and maintenance
costs, salaries, and expenses by individual project; and then finally,
a quarterly report on the financial status of the Veterans'
Administration, a health status.
This is just plain, good, open government. It creates transparency,
and it allows the American people to hold us to account. By requiring
that Federal agencies produce reports funded in this bill and publicize
them on a Web site, everybody will have easy access to the reports.
That is not the case today in the Senate or in the Congress. Evaluating
and reading these reports may prompt a congressional hearing, Federal
legislation, or even termination of a Federal program or policy.
This is a straightforward amendment. It is my hope our colleagues
will accept this amendment and it will become part of this
appropriations bill as well.

Nomination of Judge Andre Davis

Madam President, I now wish to spend a few moments talking about
Judge Andre Davis, who is the nominee for the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals.
I sit on the Judiciary Committee, and I voted against Judge Davis's
nomination coming out of the Judiciary Committee. I thought the
American people ought to know why.
He is definitely an individual of integrity. He is a very pleasant
individual. I enjoyed the banter back and forth during the hearing. But
as a Federal district judge, Judge Davis has been reversed by the
Fourth Circuit Court numerous times. A lot of judges get reversed, but
there is a trend with Judge Davis where we have seen the law
misapplied. So I have some real concerns. This is a lifetime
appointment to this circuit court, No. 1. No. 2, the Supreme Court only
hears 80 cases a year, so if a case comes to a circuit court, most
often that is a final determination.
Let me spend a little bit of time on characteristics of these
reversals because they are very concerning to me. He has been reversed
by the Fourth Circuit Court in six different cases where he was noted
to suppress evidence. For those of you like me who are not lawyers, let
me explain what that means.
Suppressing evidence in a criminal case most often results in a
defendant not being convicted of a crime and a victim and their family
not receiving justice. Not only do the victim and victim's family not
get justice but the government has to spend taxpayer dollars and
resources to appeal the case to the next level. Let me give some
examples.
In the case of U.S. v. Kimbrough, Judge Davis suppressed the
statement of a defendant who, while in the presence of police, told his
mother he had a gun in the room. The officer was trying to give him his
Miranda warnings at the time when the mother asked him if there was
anything else in the basement, besides the cocaine that was readily
visible to her and the officer.
In reversing Judge Davis's decision, the Fourth Circuit offered a
harsh rebuke stating that since the mother ``is a private citizen, her
spontaneous questioning of [the defendant] alone, independent of the
police officers, could never implicate the Fifth Amendment.'' The court
further stated that Judge Davis's conclusion that `` `Miss Kimbrough's
involvement in questioning her son was the equivalent of official
custodial interrogation,' . . . is at best incomplete and, taken
literally, is simply erroneous.'' The Fourth Circuit said that a
statement made in

[[Page S11271]]

these circumstances should ``never'' be suppressed and Judge Davis's
reasoning was ``simply erroneous.''
In U.S. v. Siegel, Judge Davis suppressed evidence of the defendant's
20-year history of scheming and plotting to take money from previous
husbands in a case where the defendant was accused of dating the
victim, taking his money, and then killing him. The facts of this case
are particularly worrisome.
The defendant had met the victim and started dating him, eventually
taking his money and trying to have him institutionalized. After
failing at having him institutionalized, she killed the victim and hid
his body. Although the body was found in 1996, it was not identified
until 2003. During that time, the defendant remarried and continued to
collect the man's Social Security checks. When the body was identified,
Federal agents contacted her and she told them the victim was alive and
had run off with some other woman. She was arrested and charged with
murdering the victim to prevent him from reporting her fraud. When the
prosecution sought to introduce the defendant's prior bad acts at
trial, Judge Davis refused. According to the Fourth Circuit, Judge
Davis was concerned about the length of the trial. The Fourth Circuit
reversed, finding that the evidence was admissible and, because the
government charged the defendant with committing murder to prevent
being reported for fraud, this evidence was an essential element of the
government's case. As for Judge Davis's concern about a lengthy trial,
the Fourth Circuit concluded that was an improper basis for excluding
wholesale this clearly probative and relevant evidence of other crimes.
On remand, the defendant was found guilty.

In the case of U.S. v. Jamison, Judge Davis suppressed the confession
of a felon who shot himself, called out to police for help, and then
gave the confession during the routine police investigation into his
injury. He was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm.
The court of appeals reversed Judge Davis's ruling and said the man's
confession was admissible in the case.
In U.S. v. Custis, the defendant was prosecuted for several Federal
drug and firearm offenses. The evidence used against him included
weapons and drugs that were seized by the police from his truck and
residence. The police search was based on a warrant obtained with
evidence they compiled from an informant who had given them reliable
data on the defendant's drug operation. Judge Davis granted the
defendant's suppression motion, finding that the search warrant was
faulty. The Fourth Circuit reversed, stating that Judge Davis erred in
granting the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence, and that if
Judge Davis had read the supporting affidavit in a ``commonsense,
rather than hypertechnical manner, as he was required to do,'' he would
not have excluded the evidence.
There are many other cases where Judge Davis has incorrectly
suppressed evidence that I will not go into at this time. There are
many other reasons, whether it be violating the sentencing levels
according to the Fourth Circuit, an abuse of discretion, remanding for
resentencing, or being more than a neutral arbiter in terms of plea
arrangements. Here is what the Fourth Circuit said about Judge Davis's
role in terms of the plea arrangements:

We have not found a single case in which the extent of
judicial involvement in plea negotiations equaled that in the
case at hand. The district court repeatedly appeared to be an
advocate for the pleas rather than as a neutral arbiter, and
any fair reading of the record reveals the substantial risk
of coerced guilty pleas. We can only conclude that the
district court's role as advocate for the defendant's guilty
pleas affected the fairness, integrity, and public reputation
of judicial proceedings.

I won't go on, but those six cases I outlined are enough for me to
not be able to support this judge, who is obviously a very fine
gentleman and a good man, but who I believe has made some significant
inexcusable errors on the bench.
Finally, I want to spend a moment talking about a bill several of my
colleagues have brought up, and it is the veterans caregivers omnibus
bill. Regardless of what the news reports say, and my colleagues say, I
am not opposed to us making sure we keep each and every commitment we
make to veterans. I think many of the programs that are in this bill
are ideally suited for the problems our veterans have. What I object to
is the fact we are going to create $3.7 billion worth of spending--and
that is a CBO score, not my score, the $3.7 billion worth of spending--
over the next 5 years and not make any effort whatsoever to eliminate
programs that don't have anywhere near the priority this program does.
The other thing I object to is the timing. There is no question we
need to do this, especially for our wounded warriors. But we are
excluding our Vietnam veterans from having access to this same care,
and we are excluding the first gulf war veterans from having the same
access. They have the same needs. Nobody can deny they don't have some
of the same needs, but we are excluding them, and from a constitutional
standpoint, I am not sure we can ever get to the point where we would
agree that is fair treatment for our veterans.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. COBURN. I wish to finish my statement first. I listened to the
Senator's statement earlier today on the floor, so let me finish my
statement.
The other thing that is concerning is we have a bill before us right
now--this appropriations bill--that has no money for this in it, one,
and authorizations aren't required. So $280 billion of the money we
appropriate every year is not authorized. The fact there is no money in
this bill for this program tells me something, that the urgency of
getting a press release isn't near the urgency of the needs of our
veterans. Because if we allow the normal process to happen, it will be
18 months from now before any money comes forward for this bill.
Finally, we have offered up a list of programs we think have much
lower priority than our veterans' health care, and so I think of my
brother, who is a veteran, and I ask myself: What did he serve for?
What did he fight for? Did he fight so we could come back here and
undermine the future by not making the same tough choices that are
required for every family and, more importantly, not demonstrate the
courage in our service that the veterans demonstrate in their service--
which is putting yourself at risk to do what is best for our country?
That is what they do, but we ought to be doing the same thing.
We ran a very large deficit this last year. Forty-three cents of
every dollar we spent this last year was borrowed. None of the people
in this room will ever pay a penny toward that debt. It will be our
children and grandchildren. And the fact is we will not make the hard
choices to pay for this so that tomorrow we can say, we are going to
eliminate these programs so this program can go forward, and we are
going to take the money that is going for these programs so this
program can go forward.
What this appropriations bill does, as a matter of fact, is ask for a
study from the Veterans' Administration on the need of this bill. So if
this bill is certainly a priority, the funding for it should have been
in this appropriations bill, and it is not. Nobody can deny it is not.
So I come to the question: When will enough be enough? When will we
stop playing a game on dollars and ultimately make the same hard
choices and demonstrate the courage our veterans have demonstrated? I
can't think of many veterans who want now what is paid on the backs of
their children or grandchildren. What they want to see us do is the
hard work, as they do the hard work, to put ourselves at risk by
telling some people no so we can tell veterans yes. What we are doing
today is we are going to tell veterans yes but we are going to tell our
children no.
I can easily outline for my colleagues $300 billion--that is ``B''
for billion--of waste, fraud, and duplication in the Federal budget.
They may disagree with some of that, but there is no question you could
get a consensus on $3.7 billion of that. On 1 percent of it, you could
get a consensus. But there is no effort made on this authorization bill
to create priorities. What we hear all the time is: Well, that is not
the way it works up here. Authorization bills are simply that, and it
has to go through the appropriations, and you are not spending any
money.
Well, if we are not spending any money on this bill, then we are not
solving the problems for our veterans.

[[Page S11272]]

And if we don't have any money for this program in this appropriations
bill, we are holding out a hollow promise.
I ask my colleagues to work with us. Let's offset the price for this,
demonstrate the same courage and the same level of commitment. There
has been no secret on who has said we should not pass this by unanimous
consent, and there has never been a time that we refused to talk to
anybody about that.

My hope is the American people are listening. Sure, we do want to do
the right things for our veterans, but there has to come a time when we
are forced to make hard choices, and we are not seeing that. We are not
seeing that in this bill, and we are not seeing it in the authorization
for this veterans and caregivers omnibus bill.
With that, I yield to my colleague from Illinois, and retain the time
until he has finished asking whatever question he may have.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator from Oklahoma, is the Senator
suggesting we should open this up to caregivers for veterans of all
wars?
Mr. COBURN. Yes, sir.
Mr. DURBIN. Would the Senator from Oklahoma join me in that endeavor?
Mr. COBURN. If we are going to do this bill, yes, I would.
Mr. DURBIN. Would the Senator from Oklahoma also agree that this bill
was on the calendar long before Veterans Day?
Mr. COBURN. Absolutely, but when was the hold? Less than 3 weeks ago.
It wasn't brought to the floor before then.
Mr. DURBIN. It was brought to the floor on September 25.
Mr. COBURN. Okay, 5 weeks. Pardon me.
Mr. DURBIN. Also, I would ask the Senator if he is suggesting we
should have included the appropriations for this bill before we
authorized it?
Mr. COBURN. I would answer my colleague that we do that 280 billion
times a year.
Mr. DURBIN. The Senator would endorse that, and wants us to include
the appropriations before we set up authorizing language?
Mr. COBURN. What I would tell my colleague is you do it routinely on
the appropriations bill. So why is this any different?
My question to my colleague is: If in fact this is so important to
get done today, knowing there is no money in this bill for this--my
colleague would agree with that, would he not, that there is no money
in this appropriations bill for this act? Is that a correct statement?
Mr. DURBIN. To my knowledge, there is not.
Mr. COBURN. There is not. So we are going to say we are going to
authorize something in the hopes that we have to do it right now,
knowing that unless we have an omnibus or a supplemental this won't
actually happen until we get to this bill again next year.
Mr. DURBIN. So is the Senator from Oklahoma conceding an authorizing
bill does not spend money, since the passage of this authorizing bill,
as you said, would not spend a penny?
Mr. COBURN. No, I will not concede that. Because what it does is it
causes us--and I enjoy debating my colleague from Illinois. Here is my
point on authorization bills. We can authorize and authorize and
authorize, and when we do, we are telling veterans they are going to
get this. That is what we are telling them. We are communicating to
every veterans organization and we are telling them we are going to do
this. So if we are going to tell them we are going to do it, we ought
to put in process the way to do it. And if we are saying it has to
happen right now, then where is the money? Show me the money to make it
happen right now.
The fact is--and I will reclaim my time--we play games, and the game
we are playing is that we can authorize and send out a press release
but then we are not held accountable to do what we have authorized.
There are a lot of good key components in this bill. My objection is
twofold: One, it discriminates against previous veterans, which I think
is uncalled for; and two, we don't eliminate any of the waste in terms
of authorizations so that we more focus the Appropriations Committee.
There is no question the Appropriations Committee has the power to
fund money anywhere they want and they do it whether the bills are
authorized or not authorized. I will be glad to give the Senator from
Illinois a list of the $280 billion we spend every year that is not
authorized. It is a spurious argument to state that we should not have
fiscal accountability when we authorize programs. We should have and we
ought to make the tough choices. The problem is, we do not do any
oversight, to speak of, to cause us to know the programs that are not
working that we could eliminate so we will not have duplicate funding
and so we will not spend it.
The question veterans ask me is what is our priority with our money.
The first priority has to be defending the country. The second priority
ought to be about taking care of veterans. What we do is we have $300
billion a year in waste, fraud, and duplication on things that do not
do either of those and that are extremely wasteful. Nobody with common
sense would say they ought to continue. Yet we continue down the
process.
I have taken more than my time and I know my colleagues are going to
vote. I would tell my colleague from Illinois we have had this debate a
large number of times. We have a frank disagreement about the fiscal
discipline that should be required of us as Senators. The fact is, we
are going to authorize a bill and we are not going to make any tough
choices about anything else and we are not going to take away any
options from the Appropriations Committee when it comes to funding. To
me, that abrogates our responsibility to be good authorizers. I will
stand by that conviction as long as I am in the Senate. We had that
debate on the bridge to nowhere, which my colleague supported, which
was in an authorizing bill--and multiple times.
With that, I yield the floor and I am prepared to listen to my
colleague from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I know we have a standing order for a
trigger to move to the Executive Calendar, but I ask unanimous consent
for 5 minutes for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request, a
short statement, and then to ask two other amendments which I have
introduced to this bill be called and be pending.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I will speak briefly to the Senator from
Oklahoma. This is not my bill. This was a bill introduced by Senator
Hillary Clinton. It has been around for a long time. It is an effort to
provide some help to the 6,800 families who have in their homes today a
disabled veteran who needs a caregiver, someone who helps that veteran
change the dressings on their wounds, provides an IV change if
necessary, injections if necessary, move them from bed to chair and
back again. For many of our veterans, that is their lifeline. It is a
wife who is giving her life to her husband who has returned injured
from a war. It is a mother, a father, a son, a daughter, a loved one in
the family. These people are as much a part of our veterans medical
system as the great people who serve us at the veterans hospitals and
veterans centers across America.
What Senator Clinton wanted to do and what I want to help her do is
provide some help for these caregivers. Many of them are giving their
lives to this veteran. It is not too much to ask that we help them with
a small stipend each month, with training so they know how to do the
things that are necessary so they can provide the medical help these
veterans need, with 2 weeks of respite so they can have a little time
off by themselves and have someone else, such as a visiting nurse, step
in for the veteran during that period of time.
We reported the bill out of the Veterans' Committee and brought it to
the floor. By custom in the Senate, regardless of what you just heard,
we first pass a bill authorizing a program and, if it is passed, we
appropriate money to the program. I am trying to follow that regular
order.
The Senator from Oklahoma has objected. He is the only person
objecting. Because of his objection 6,800 veterans, those who served
Iraq and Afghanistan,

[[Page S11273]]

are unable to get this additional care. I know we cannot give it to
every caregiver. I know it will be limited, and we will have to make
that decision as part of our deliberation as to what we can do. But to
say we should do nothing for these people is to make a mockery of this
Veterans Day. If we truly care for these veterans, let us care for
these families who are giving their lives to help them.
I hope the Senator from Oklahoma will lift the hold on this bill,
give us a chance to debate it, offer his amendments. That is what we
are here for. But to merely stand and say: No, stop, I will not allow
it, I don't think is what the Senate should be about. Let us debate his
point of view, my point of view, other points of view, and try to reach
some conclusion.

Amendment No. 2759 to Amendment No. 2730

I ask that the clerk call up my pending amendment No. 2759.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes an
amendment numbered 2759.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To enhance the ability of the Department of Veterans Affairs
to recruit and retain health care administrators and providers in
underserved rural areas)

On page 52, after line 21, add the following:
Sec. 229. (a)(1)(A) Of the amount made available by this
title for the Veterans Health Administration under the
heading ``medical services'', $1,500,000 shall be available
to allow the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to offer
incentives to qualified health care providers working in
underserved rural areas designated by the Veterans Health
Administration, in addition to amounts otherwise available
for other pay and incentives.
(B) Health care providers shall be eligible for incentives
pursuant to this paragraph only for the period of time that
they serve in designated areas.
(2)(A) Of the amount made available by this title for the
Veterans Health Administration under the heading ``medical
support and compliance'', $1,500,000 shall be available to
allow the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to offer incentives
to qualified health care administrators working in
underserved rural areas designated by the Veterans Health
Administration, in addition to amounts otherwise available
for other pay and incentives.
(B) Health care administrators shall be eligible for
incentives pursuant to this paragraph only for the period of
time that they serve in designated areas.
(b) Not later than March 31, 2010, the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs shall submit to the Committees on Veterans'
Affairs and Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives a report detailing the number of new
employees receiving incentives under the pilot program
established pursuant to this section, describing the
potential for retaining those employees, and explaining the
structure of the program.

Amendment No. 2760 to Amendment No. 2730

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
be set aside and the clerk call up amendment No. 2760.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes an
amendment numbered 2760 to amendment No. 2730.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To designate the North Chicago Veterans Affairs Medical
Center, Illinois, as the ``Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care
Center'')

At the end of title II, add the following:
Sec. 229. (a) Naming of Health Care Center.--Effective
October 1, 2010, the North Chicago Veterans Affairs Medical
Center located in Lake County, Illinois, shall be known and
designated as the ``Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health
Care Center''.
(b) References.--Any reference to the medical center
referred to in subsection (a) in any law, regulation, map,
document, record, or other paper of the United States shall
be considered to be a reference to the Captain James A.
Lovell Federal Health Care Center.

Mr. COBURN. Madam Presiding, during today's conversation, the Senator
from Illinois stated that S. 1963 had been on the Senate calendar since
September 25, 2009. In fact, S. 1963 was read the second time and
placed on the calendar on October 29, 2009. A request was not made for
unanimous consent to pass the bill on the minority side until Friday,
November 6, 2009.
There are currently 35,000 veterans receiving aid and attendance
benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs, which provides
funding for veterans who need extra help at home but do not need
institutional care. The aid and attendance program assists all disabled
veterans of all wars. Out of this population, around 2,000 veterans
received their injuries after September 11 and would qualify for extra
caregiver assistance in this bill. However, caregivers for tens of
thousands of veterans of prior wars would not. Of course, that assumes
that the House passes the Caregiver Assistance Act in its Chamber and
the President signs it into law. Then it assumes that next year, in the
discussion on the fiscal year 2011 budget, the President requests
funding for caregiver assistance, or that both appropriations
committees include funding, and that the President signs this into law.
The absolute earliest that a caregiver would receive assistance is
October 1, 2010. However, that date is not likely given the performance
of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Right now, the average
processing of a disability claim is 162 days at the Department. Given
that the Department will have to make rules on this new benefit, it
will be well into 2011 before any caregiver benefits from this program.
However, passing this bill before Veterans Day will give benefits to
politicians, who will have made an empty promise in 2009 that might not
be realized until 2011, and even then, would be paid for by our
children and grandchildren.

____________________