To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, to provide special pays and allowances to certain members of the Armed Forces, expand concurrent receipt of military retirement and VA disability benefits to disabled military retirees, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, I yield myself 20 minutes.

Mr. President, the conference report on H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, would fully fund the fiscal year 2010 budget request of $680 billion for national security activities in the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy. This bill is the product of months of hard work by our committee, culminating in more than 6 weeks of negotiations with our House counterparts. I thank all of the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee for the commitment they have shown to the best interests of our men and women of our Armed Forces. I want to particularly thank Senator McCain, our ranking minority member, for his great work throughout the conference. It has been a real pleasure to work side-by-side with Senator McCain as we worked through issues with our counterparts from the House of Representatives.

I also want to thank the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Ike Skelton, and his ranking minority member, Buck McKeon, for the cooperative spirit with which they worked with us throughout the conference.

This conference report contains many important provisions that will improve the quality of life of our men and women in uniform, provide needed support and assistance to our troops on the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan, make the investments we need to meet the challenges of the 21st century, and require needed reforms in the management of the Department of Defense.

First and foremost, the bill before us continues the increases in compensation and quality of life that our service men and women and their families deserve as they face the hardships imposed by continuing military operations around the world. For example, the bill contains provisions that would authorize a 3.4 percent across-the-board pay raise for all uniformed military personnel--a half a percent more than the budget request and the annual rate of inflation; increase the Army's active-duty end strength by nearly 30,000, and authorize an additional

30,000 increase during fiscal years 2011 and 2012, if the Secretary of Defense deems it necessary to increase dwell time and reduce the stress created by repeated deployments; authorize payment of over 25 types of bonuses and special pays aimed at encouraging enlistment, reenlistment, and continued service by active-duty and reserve military personnel; extend the limitation on charges for inpatient care in a civilian hospital under TRICARE Standard; enhance the ability of military voters to vote by absentee ballot; increase the authorization for the Homeowners Assistance Program by almost $300 million to provide relief to homeowners in the armed forces who are required to relocate because of base closures or change of station orders; and increase the maximum amount of supplemental subsistence allowance from $500 to $1,100 per month to ensure that service members and their families do not have to be dependent on food stamps.

The conference report also includes a number of provisions to support the civilian workforce of the Department of Defense. For example, the bill contains provisions that would: provide for the application of unused sick leave toward length of service for purposes of computing a retirement annuity under the Federal Employee Retirement System; phase in locality comparability pay in place of cost of living allowances for Federal civilian employees working in Hawaii, Alaska, and other nonforeign U.S. territories, so that they are treated the same as federal employees in other States; terminate the National Security Personnel System--NSPS--and replace it with a provision that provides a series of personnel flexibilities applicable to the entire civilian workforce of the Department of Defense and an opportunity for the Secretary to propose additional flexibilities; freeze the Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System--DCIPS--until an independent review can be completed; and authorize the Secretary of Defense to establish a new Defense Civilian Leadership Program to help recruit, train, and retain highly qualified civilian employees to help lead the Department of Defense over the next 20 years.

The conference report also includes important funding and authorities needed to provide our troops the equipment and support that they will continue to need as long as they remain on the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan. For example, the bill contains provisions that would provide $6.7 billion for the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected--MRAP-- Vehicle Fund, including an increase of $1.2 billion above the President's budget request for MRAP All-Terrain Vehicles--M-ATV--which are deploying to Afghanistan; add $100 million for unfunded requirements identified by the Commander of Special Operations Command, including MC-130 airships to provide improved fire support for our ground forces in Afghanistan and Iraq; provide full funding for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization--JIEDDO--to continue the development and deployment of technologies to defeat these attacks; provide nearly $7.5 billion to train and equip the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police, so that they can begin to carry more of the burden of defending their country against the Taliban; and authorize up to $1.3 billion for the Commanders' Emergency Response Program--CERP--in Iraq and Afghanistan for humanitarian relief and reconstruction projects that directly benefit local communities, including up to $50.0 million to support the Afghanistan National Solidarity Program to promote Afghan-led community development.

The bill would implement almost all of the budget recommendations made by the Secretary of Defense to terminate troubled programs and apply the savings to higher priority activities of the Department. For example, the bill would end production of the F-22 fighter after 187 aircraft; terminate the Air Force Combat Search and Rescue X--CSAR-X-- helicopter program; terminate the VH-71 Presidential helicopter; end production of the C-17 airlifter program; cancel the manned ground vehicle portion of the Army's Future Combat Systems program, with assurances those funds will be available for the newly designed vehicle portion--ground vehicle portion; terminate the Multiple Kill Vehicle program; cancel the Kinetic Energy Interceptor and we cancel the second Airborne Laser prototype aircraft.

Finally, the bill contains a number of provisions that will help improve the management of the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies. For example, the bill contains provisions that would enhance the ability of the DOD inspector general to conduct audits and investigations by authorizing the IG to subpoena witnesses to provide testimony; improve DOD financial management by requiring the Department to engage in business process reengineering before acquiring new information technology systems and submit regular reports on its progress toward auditable financial statements; require the Department to develop a comprehensive plan to address longstanding problems in its inventory management systems, which lead it to acquire and store hundreds of millions of dollars worth of unneeded items; place a moratorium on public-private competitions under OMB Circular A-76 until the Department complies with existing statutory planning and budget requirements relevant to such competitions; and streamline and restructure DOD management positions by eliminating 22 of the 28 current Deputy Under Secretary of Defense positions and requiring the Department to develop a new organizational plan within 6 months.

The conference report incorporates two pieces of legislation from in the Senate-passed bill: the Military Commissions Act of 2009 and the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

The Military Commissions Act of 2009 would replace, and dramatically improve, the procedures enacted in the Military Commissions Act of 2006. In its 2006 decision in the Hamdan case, the Supreme Court held that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to the Guantanamo detainees and requires that the trial of those detainees be conducted in a manner consistent with the procedures applicable in trials by courts-martial.

The Supreme Court concluded that this requirement ``is not an inflexible one; it does not preclude all departures from the procedures dictated for use by courts martial. But any departure must be tailored to the exigency that necessitates it.''

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 created a cloud over the use of military commissions because it failed to live up to that standard. The conference report would address this problem by, one, precluding the use of coerced testimony; two, limiting the use of hearsay testimony; three, establishing new procedures for handling classified information similar to procedures applicable in civilian courts; four, providing defendants with fairer access to witnesses and documentary evidence; and five, requiring the defendant to be provided with appropriate representation and adequate resources.

The Military Commissions Act of 2009 is intended to meet the standard imposed by the Supreme Court's ruling in Hamdan and should help ensure that convictions obtained through military commissions will hold up on appeal and will be perceived as fair by the American public and by the rest of the world.

I thank Senators McCain and Graham as well as the lawyers at the White House, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Justice, who worked with us and for the great effort they put into this provision.

The conference report incorporates the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Similar provisions have been previously adopted by both the Senate and the House of Representatives. This legislation is intended to help deter people from being targeted for violent attacks because of race, religion, disability, gender, or sexual orientation, among other aspects. The Senate adopted the hate crimes legislation when we adopted the Defense Authorization Act, and it was kept in conference. The House of Representatives has now adopted the conference report, and so it is now hopefully going to be before us after a cloture vote.

The hate crimes legislation includes, for the first time, a provision that makes it a Federal crime to attack a member of the U.S. Armed Forces on account of his or her military service--a hate crime that is of particular interest to the armed services.

According to the FBI, the trend is up for hate crimes based on sexual orientation. There has been a 6-percent increase in such crimes in the most recent year for which statistics are available, which is the year 2006. This is a category of hate crimes that would be covered for the first time by this bill.

The language has been written to ensure it does not intrude on first amendment rights, that State and local law enforcement retain the primary jurisdiction over investigations and prosecutions.

We all know Senator Kennedy was long the Senate's leading advocate for hate crimes legislation. As he said when the Senate debated and passed this legislation in 2007:

America has taken many steps throughout our history on a

long road to becoming a more inclusive Nation, and our

diversity is one of our greatest strengths. Our tolerance for

each other's differences is part of the lamp that can help

bring light to a world which is enveloped in bigotry and

intolerance.

The enactment of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act through this, which is the last National Defense Authorization Act in which Senator Kennedy participated in his 26 years of service on the Armed Services Committee, would be a fitting tribute to one of the truly great Senators in the history of this body.

Finally, I thank Senator Leahy for the leadership role he has played on this issue in his capacity as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

As of today, we have almost 130,000 U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines on the ground. Over the course of the next fiscal year, we will undertake the difficult task of drawing down these numbers--these are numbers in Iraq--while maintaining security and stability on the ground. At the same time, we have dramatically increased our forces in Afghanistan, with more than 60,000 engaged in increasingly active combat and combat-support operations, with more on the way.

This conference report includes numerous provisions that need to go into effect immediately to ensure that they benefit our troops immediately. These provisions cannot be implemented before this conference report is enacted but will go into effect, without the need for appropriations, immediately upon enactment.

They include the following in the area of compensation and benefits. The conference report includes provisions that would prevent the implementation of large increases in the copayments military retirees must pay for in-patient care at civilian hospitals under the TRICARE Program; provisions which would authorize new special compensation for caregivers of catastrophically injured servicemembers; and a provision which will increase the maximum amount of supplemental subsistence allowance to ensure servicemembers do not have to rely on food stamps to meet their nutritional needs. Those important provisions and others which I am going to now talk about will not go into effect until this conference report is enacted.

With regard to our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the conference report includes provisions that will immediately go into effect without the need for appropriations.

For instance, there is a provision which would authorize the Secretary of Defense to transfer defense equipment that would otherwise be withdrawn from Iraq and transfer it to the security forces of Iraq and Afghanistan, their national forces. The use of that equipment by those national forces in Iraq and Afghanistan will assist in the transfer of security responsibilities to the Iraqi forces and the growth of the Afghan Army and police forces more quickly.

Another provision which will go into effect immediately upon enactment would allow the Secretary of Defense to use funds from the CERP in Afghanistan to pay for reintegration programs to separate local Taliban fighters from their leaders. This is a new program modeled on the Sons of Iraq Program which was so successful in getting large numbers of young Iraqis who had been attacking us to switch sides and support the government. These are two programs which I think people strongly support regardless of their position on the question of strategy and the troop levels. Those provisions will make it possible, immediately upon enactment, to use funds to support the reintegration of those young Afghans into their civilian life, just the way we did with the Sons of Iraq.

This provision will permit the shipping of equipment that is so important to strengthen the Afghan Army and police from Iraq instead of bringing it home. These are critically urgent provisions, particularly in Afghanistan.

Another provision, as soon as a conference report is enacted, would permit the Secretary of Defense to use up to $500 million in operations and maintenance funds to meet urgent military construction needs of the commander of the Central Command in Iraq and Afghanistan that were not previously forecast. But these new authorities are not there until the conference report is enacted.

As I mentioned earlier, this bill includes the Military Commissions Act of 2009, which is needed to make trial of detainees by military commissions a viable alternative to trial in Federal court. Until it is enacted, any conviction obtained before a military commission will be at serious risk of being overturned on appeal. For that reason, the administration has suspended all military commission trials until this language goes into effect.

We have enacted a defense authorization bill every year for almost 50 years now. We have done so because Members of Congress have understood, on a bipartisan basis, the importance of supporting our troops and making the policy decisions that are necessary to support them. This year is no different.

With almost 200,000 men and women of the Armed Forces currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and many more supporting them and engaging in other demanding activities on our behalf and their behalf around the world, we cannot afford not to enact this legislation.

For all these reasons, I would urge our colleagues to vote for cloture on the conference report and then to adopt the conference report itself.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, very briefly, I yield myself just 1 minute. There is no conference to send this back to. The conference, by rules, has been disbanded.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

How much on the other side?

Mr. President, I am going to be very brief and will not use the 10 minutes, unless there is somebody else who wishes to speak in support of the motion to invoke cloture.

I yield myself, Mr. President, 6 minutes.

Just very briefly, let me say that the Senate has adopted hate crimes legislation on a defense authorization bill, I believe, three times. This is not the first time we would do this. It is not the second time we would do this. So it is not unique. It is not unusual. It is not unprecedented.

It is important that we provide the same kind of protection for the additional groups who are being protected under this legislation, including groups who would be attacked physically based on sexual orientation.

It would protect men and women in uniform for the first time from these kinds of hate crimes. That is something in which the Armed Services Committee has a special interest. The language has been written to ensure that it does not intrude on first amendment rights, that State and local law enforcement retain primary jurisdiction over investigations and prosecutions. It would punish violent acts

only, not beliefs. No Federal prosecution could take place under the provision unless the Justice Department certifies that the State in which the hate crime occurred either does not have the jurisdiction, has asked the Federal Government to assume jurisdiction, or has failed to vindicate the Federal interest against hate crime motivated violence or that a Federal prosecution is necessary to secure substantial justice. Senator Kennedy was the champion of this provision. Over and over again, he attempted successfully in the Senate to get this kind of language adopted. He pointed out, and I think with eloquence that is unmatched, that the values men and women in uniform fight for are these kinds of values: the value of diversity, the value of nondiscrimination. To say this has no place on this bill, it seems to me, is wrong for that reason as well as a number of other reasons.

We have had strong support for this provision from the Department of Justice and from law enforcement groups across the country that want this kind of support. The Senate, again, has authorized this legislation on the Defense authorization bill and has supported it twice before. This is at least the third time now that it is part of this bill. There are good reasons for it being part of Defense authorization, one of which is the values that are reflected here that when the men and women put on the uniform of our country, they fight to protect.

This would be a real tribute to Senator Kennedy for this language to be included. I remember going over with him to urge the House to adopt this language a couple years ago. The House did not do it then, although we in the Senate did do it. But now the House has adopted it. The Senate voted on this language just a few weeks ago with, I believe, 63 votes to incorporate this language into the Defense authorization bill. So we have already voted to do this. There is nothing unique or unprecedented about doing it again.

I hope we will invoke cloture. The stakes are huge. When I spoke before, I was quoting some of the things this bill will provide which are essential.

Now, some of the things in this bill required an appropriation. The Appropriations Committee hasn't acted on--excuse me--we haven't adopted an appropriations bill yet. Those things are not going to be held up if we don't pass this bill today, but there are a few things that will be held up. Our veterans are going to have to pay more for prescriptions and copays if we don't act on this bill, and acting on this bill will prevent that increase in copays without an appropriation.

We all talk about the importance of getting to Afghanistan equipment that is in Iraq. This bill has language which will permit that to happen. There is great disagreement as to what the right policy is in Afghanistan, but there seems to be no disagreement that we ought to strengthen the Afghan Army. One of the key ways to strengthen the Afghan Army is to get them equipment that is currently in Iraq which, if we don't pass this bill, is going to have to be shipped back here not only at great expense but also denying to the Afghan Army that we are trying to build up the kind of equipment that will make it possible for them to assert greater control for the security of their own country. That equipment cannot be transferred until this bill passes because that is nonexcess equipment. The moment this bill passes and is signed by the President, that equipment can be shipped to Afghanistan. That will protect our troops.

To try to pass another bill--have the House pass another bill, have another conference created if we can get one, have the conference, go through the process of conferees--is going to deny and delay an essential item going to Afghanistan to help protect our troops and our interests.

We talk a lot about: Why can't we do in Afghanistan what they did in Iraq? Why can't we have the Sons of Iraq be the Sons of Afghanistan? Why can't we put a policy in place which will attract those young Afghans who are on the payroll of the Taliban not because they believe in the extreme religious fanatic position the Taliban takes, but because it is a check or, more importantly, more accurately, cash they can put in their pockets?

With the Sons of Iraq we were able to wean away from the attackers, the people who hated us, 100,000 young Iraqis because we had a program which would help to fund that. This bill contains the authorization for our commanders to use CERP funding for that purpose. That is going to support our troops. Those funds can't be used until the President puts his name on this bill. Delaying that jeopardizes our troops, jeopardizes our interests, and it is one of the many essential provisions in this bill, and until they become law cannot be put into effect. But the moment it does become law, if and when it does, it can be placed into effect.

So the stakes on this first vote are great. If we delay adopting this bill by not adopting cloture, we are going to be taking a step backwards in terms of the support of our troops and our interests in Afghanistan and Iraq. The delay is unacceptable. I hope our colleagues will vote for cloture.

I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, we have just adopted a landmark Defense authorization bill. We are sending to the President the 48th consecutive Defense authorization bill--I move to reconsider the vote on that bill and lay that motion upon the table.

The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, we have an unbroken tradition on our committee, 48 consecutive national Defense authorization bills. It is never easy to get this bill through the legislative process. But with perseverance, a lot of good-faith work has never let us down.

We maintain our focus because we are acting on behalf of our true heroes, the men and women of our Armed Forces and their families. The enactment of this conference report is going to provide the men and women of our Armed Forces, both Active and Reserve, and their families with the pay and benefits they deserve, the equipment and training they need.

The conference report includes $164 billion for military personnel, including costs of pay, allowances, bonuses, survivor benefits, and military health care. It would authorize a 3.4 percent across-the-board pay raise for our troops, a half a percent above the budget request and the annual increase in the employment cost Index.

The conference report would authorize $130 billion in funding for our ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would provide more than $2.0 billion for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund, to help take on the threat that has claimed so many American lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would fully fund the President's request for $7.5 billion to train and equip the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police.

This legislation sends a vital message to our men and women in uniform that we, as a nation, stand behind them and appreciate their service.

We are at this point because all our dedicated Members and all our dedicated staff members--on both sides of the Capitol--were all willing to hit on all cylinders and keep this bill rolling along.

Of course, I want to start by thanking my partner and my friend, Senator McCain, as well as all committee members, for their active roles in getting us to this point. Our counterparts on the House side, Congressmen Ike Skelton and Buck McKeon and the House Armed Services Committee staff lead by Erin Conaton and Bob Simmons, also have our gratitude. Senator McCain and I are extremely grateful to our own committee staff members who so willingly put all their legislative expertise into this bill. Not only is there a tremendous amount of legislative craftsmanship involved, but there is a mind-boggling number of administrative details that have to be meticulously tracked in this massive bill.

I again thank my partner and my friend, Senator McCain, as well as all committee members for their active roles in getting us to this very historic moment when there is much in this bill that is so important to our troops, as well as a number of other provisions which are critically important to success in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Our dedicated, hard-working staff assistants in particular deserve a special mention for their extraordinary efforts in this regard. As a visible sign of the high regard in which we hold our staff, I ask unanimous consent to have all staff members' names printed in the Record. I offer here a list of the staff of the Armed Services Committee for that purpose.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak about one of the most significant issues we have confronting us as a nation, our rising deficits and debt. At the end of the last fiscal year, which just concluded at the beginning of October, end of September, we determined we had a $1.4 trillion deficit--$1.4 trillion.

It is projected that we will have trillion-dollar deficits for the next 10 years under the President's budgets as President Obama has brought them forward. Yesterday we had a vote not to do cloture on a bill the administration supported, and which was brought forward here, which would have put another $300 billion onto the Federal debt to pay for what is known as the doctors fix.

The doctors fix is something which should occur. We have done it around here before. We have done it every year for about 8 years; that is, reimbursing doctors at a fair rate rather than having their rates cut. But we have always paid for it.

But yesterday there was an attempt by the leadership on the other side of the aisle to pass a bill which would have not paid for the doctors fix and which would have put $300 billion of new debt onto our children's backs; so that every time somebody walked into a doctor's office and was reimbursed under Medicare, that bill, whether it was for a flu shot or whether it was for serious disease issues, would have been taken and passed directly to our children rather than paid for today, as it should have been. So it was a totally irresponsible act to try to increase the debt by $300 billion in order to take care of the doctors fix. But that was what was attempted. Fortunately that failed. At least as of yesterday it failed.

There was bipartisan appreciation in the Senate. All of the Republicans voted against doing that, and 12 Democrats and 1 Independent voted against doing it, and that was good. That was a good sign to the American people that maybe we are finally taking the deficit and the debt seriously.

The reason I wanted to speak today on this matter is because we are getting some significant warning signs, some flashing yellow lights that are moving from yellow, maybe, to red from the world community that we better do something about our debt and our deficit or the world community is going to react to it.

About 4 months ago now the Chinese, who are the primary owners of our debt--in other words, when we spend $1.4 trillion more than we have in a year like we did last year or we spend $1 trillion more than we have every year for the next 10 years as is being

proposed by the President, we have to get that money from somewhere. We have to borrow it from somebody. Someone has to be willing to lend us that money, that $1 trillion, that $1.4 trillion.

Well, the countries that have that type of money and are willing to lend it to us are countries such as China and Russia and Saudi Arabia. They have surpluses in their economies. They are not running deficits in their governments, so they have surpluses. They have, historically, at least over the last few years, been willing to buy our treasuries, our notes to finance the government operation in the United States.

About 4 months ago the leadership of the Chinese Government said: Well, we are getting a little concerned. We are still going to buy American treasuries. We are still going to help you finance your deficit. But you have to do something about this because we are concerned about the value of what we are buying. We are concerned that those IOUs we are buying from you may not be worth what we are paying for them on face value if you continue to run your deficit that you have.

That was a fairly large warning sign from a country which obviously has not historically been close to us but which is one of our largest trading partners, and which is, whether we like it or not, buying up all of this debt when we run these massive deficits, or a lot of this debt.

Another warning sign came at us when the dollar, which has historically been the reserve currency of the world--in other words, countries hold dollars in order to maintain their own structure of reserves for their countries. The dollar started to be discussed as maybe not the best reserve currency, and there have been a number of rumors and some representations by some Finance Ministers around the world that people might not want to use the dollar any longer as their reserve currency. They may want to use some other currency--maybe the euro or some basket of currencies, maybe the euro, the yen, or maybe just use commodities or maybe use IMF drawing rights, a whole series of different ideas.

What does that reflect? That reflects that people are not too confident in our future ability to maintain and defend the value of the dollar. Why are they not confident about that? Well, they are not confident about it because they are looking at the deficits we are running. They are looking at the debt we are piling up, and they are saying: Hold it. How are you going to pay all of that off? If you put $13, $14, $15, $16 trillion worth of debt on your Nation, if you take your public debt from 38 percent of GDP up to 80 percent of GDP or more, how are you going to pay that off, United States?

That is a legitimate question because there are only a few ways it can be paid off. One of them, unfortunately, is by using inflation, and that devalues the dollar and it devalues all of that debt people have bought. That is why we are hearing more and more that people, first, are worried about using the dollar as their reserve currency because they do not want to see its value drop; and, secondly, they are worried about buying our debt.

So we are getting some serious caution lights from the international community about the fact that we are running these massive deficits and this massive debt. Just yesterday, I think one of the most serious caution lights came out because there are groups in this world, small groups of people--Moody's and Standard & Poor's--who basically look at the currencies and the debt of various nations and they do that also for companies and they rate the debt. The rest of the world's financial activities look at those ratings because they are considered to be of very high caliber and very high standard. They allow people in other places to be able to assess the value of the debt they might want to buy.

So if you want to buy debt from XYZ country, you look at Moody's or Standard, that has taken a hard look at that country's debt, evaluated it, and they will tell you whether it is rated AAA, AA, A. That determines how much it is going to cost a country to lend to you. That will determine the amount of interest rate on that debt because if it is not AAA, which is the best rated debt, then people are going to be less likely to invest in it. If they do invest in it, they are going to want a higher return because they are going to be at bigger risk because they know that debt might not be paid back. If it is paid back, it might be paid back in devalued dollars or devalued currency of that country.

So, historically, American debt, the Treasury note, has been the gold standard for the world. In fact, it is technically the gold standard. Most people use it as the reserve fund. When the world went off the gold standard, the dollar basically became the way people maintained and conserved their assets. They would invest in Treasury notes and know that the treasuries were always safe. It was always determined that Treasury notes were safe because the United States always was going to pay back its debt.

So the United States has always had a AAA rating. That is hugely important to us as a nation. It is hard to appreciate as just an ordinary American going to work every day and trying to make ends meet that the AAA rating of the United States is important to them, but it is. It affects everything in this country that has to do with credit.

If the United States were to lose its AAA rating, all credit would go up, and the costs in this country. It would be much harder to buy a house because the interest rates would be higher. It would be harder to buy a car because the interest rates would be higher. It would be harder to send a child to college because the interest rates would be higher. Everything is tied to the fact that treasuries have AAA ratings. It has always been presumed that they would.

In the post-World War II period, it has always been presumed that the United States, the strongest economy in the world, the most vibrant economy in the world, would always have the gold standard for the debt it issues, that it would always be a AAA-rated event. Well, as a result of our profligate nature as a country and as a Congress, as a result of having run up these massive deficits, we are getting a very large yellow flashing light from the rating agencies.

They are saying this--this was an October 22 news report from Reuters:

The United States, which posted a record deficit in the

last fiscal year, may lose its AAA rating if it does not

reduce the gap to a manageable level in the next 3-4 years.

That is according to Moody's Investors Service.

The AAA rating of the United States is not guaranteed.

Steve Hess, Moody's lead analyst for the United States, said in an interview on Reuters Television:

So if you do not get the deficit down in the next 3-4 years

to a sustainable level, then the rating will be in jeopardy.

Those are words that should make us in the Congress pause because they are directed right at us. The most sophisticated and important evaluator of America's deficit situation and debt, Moody's ratings service, is saying if we as a Congress do not do something within the next 3 to 4 years to bring our debt under control, and our deficits down, we may jeopardize the AAA rating of the United States.

I can think of nothing that would be more irresponsible for a Congress to do to the American people than to jeopardize and put at risk the AAA rating of this country. Maybe only after disarming ourselves in the face of a potential terrorist threat or the use of a weapon of mass destruction, I can think of nothing which would have a larger impact on our populous than for the Congress to put in place fiscal policies which would jeopardize our ability to sell bonds, American debt around the world at a reasonable price, and put at risk the value of the dollar and the status of the dollar as the reserve currency of the world, as a result of putting at risk the AAA rating of our bonds.

That is exactly what we are doing. This gentleman, Mr. Hess, said we have to, within the next 3 or 4 years, put in place a manageable plan, a realistic plan, that will address the deficit and debt of the United States.

Are we doing that now? We are doing just the opposite. Just yesterday this Congress tried to pass $300 billion of new debt for ordinary expenses, for daily expenses of paying doctors. We were going to give an IOU to our children and our grandchildren 5, 10 years from now. Total irresponsibility.

Last week it was the White House suggesting we do the exact same thing in Social Security for $13 billion. A couple of months ago we did the same thing on cash for clunkers for $5 billion. A budget was passed by this Congress, which does it for the whole Nation--it creates $1 trillion of unfunded liability and deficits for the next 10 years every year.

Now we have this health care bill coming at us, which is going to increase the size of the government by $1 to $2 trillion, which is represented that it is paid for, but that is only because they phase in the expenses 4 years after they phase in the income and thus are able to match 10 years of income versus 6 years of expenses. So they claim it is paid for.

When the bill is fully phased in, it will not be paid for. It is going to be a huge cost to the Federal Government, and even if it were paid for, it would be taking massive resources in the area of Medicare by $400 billion and it is going to raise fees by $500 billion. Instead of using those resources to reduce the debt, it will use them to create a brand new major entitlement at a time when we have on the books entitlements which we can't afford today.

Medicare has a $34 trillion unfunded liability. Yet we will add a new major entitlement on top of Medicare and Medicaid, and we will pay for part of it by cutting Medicare. Still, instead of cutting Medicare for the purposes of paying for that, we should be using Medicare savings for the purposes of making Medicare solvent. We should not be growing the government. We are going to do a $1 to $2 trillion increase in the size of government. I will absolutely guarantee that that will not be fully paid for and that a large percentage of that will go to our debt.

On top of having deficits which are already projected to be a trillion dollars a year for the next 10 years, we are seeing a Congress which is being incredibly spendthrift in its approach to all sorts of areas: $300 billion to pay doctors, new debt; and who knows how much out of this health care bill. I am willing to bet the family farm that it will be well over a trillion dollars of new debt when it is fully phased in; new programs in the area of Social Security, which is already bankrupt, unpaid for, added to the debt; new programs for this favorite group, cash for clunkers or whatever the issue is of the day. We are totally out of control on the spending side of the ledger.

It is not a revenue issue. It is a spending issue. Revenues have historically been about 19 percent of GDP. Spending has been about 20 percent of GDP. But under the budget which we have been given, independent of the health care bill, spending goes from 20 percent of GDP up to 23 percent. And when we throw in this health care bill, we are heading toward 24, 25 percent of GDP. Revenues, if they maintain their historic levels once the recession is over, go back to 19 percent of GDP, but we still have a 6 to 7-percent gap because spending has gone up so much.

I appreciate the fact that this administration comes with a philosophy--and they won the election--that we create prosperity by growing the government. The President said that. People around him said that. Members on the other side of the aisle say that. We create prosperity by growing the government. But we don't create prosperity if we let the government grow so fast that it can't be paid for. Government cannot be allowed to grow any faster than it can be paid for. In my opinion, prosperity doesn't come from the government to begin with. Prosperity comes from entrepreneurs who are willing to create risks and create jobs. Independent of that philosophical debate, the simple fact is, if we allow government to grow a lot faster than we have the capacity to pay for it, we create debt. It is that debt and these independent people looking at that debt who are giving us these massive caution lights and saying: Slow down, get your house in order.

People who are buying our debt around the world are saying it. People who use the dollar as reserve currency around the world are saying it. And now Moody's, the clear, independent arbiter of what the value of debt is and what its likelihood of repayment is, is saying it in the most stark way. The AAA rating of the United States is not guaranteed, Steve Hess of Moody's, said. So if they don't get the deficit down in the next 3 to 4 years to a sustainable level, the rating will be in jeopardy.

We need to heed those words. We need to get some discipline around here, and we need to stop having proposals which dramatically increase the size of the government and continue to put us on a path where we pass debt on to our children which will cause them to have a much lower standard of living than we had and which will cause them to be unable to send their children to college, to buy their first home and afford a car, because they will be confronting a nation where the debt is absorbing so much of the productivity of the economy or where inflation has basically priced them out of the markets.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to address the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act of 2009--the MOVE Act. Since its inception, the MOVE Act has garnered strong bipartisan support, and today we celebrate its passage as part of the National Defense Authorization Act.

I want to recognize the importance of this Act and also to acknowledge my partners in this effort especially my friends and colleagues, Senator Saxby Chambliss, Senator Ben Nelson, Senator Bob Bennett, and Senator John Cornyn. I would also like to thank Senators Levin and McCain and their staffs, as well as the House and Senate conferees for their time, support, and work to ensure that the provisions of the MOVE Act were included in the conference report.

Every now and then an opportunity emerges to work on an important issue with a team of colleagues towards a single goal. This bill provided one such opportunity, and I am extremely pleased to have worked with such a committed team. This legislation is a bipartisan solution to a serious, yet all too familiar problem--the problem of military and other overseas voters not being able to cast their vote and have that vote counted.

Every couple of years there is a great push to improve the process of military and overseas voting. However, as soon as the election is over, Congress too often neglects to push for improved rights for military voters. That neglect is over. The needs of military and overseas voters have been heard, and met, with this legislation.

While the need for Congress to act is now, this is not a new problem and we are not the first to identify the problem and attempt to deal with it. The first revolution in military voting rights occurred not when our soldiers were overseas. It occurred during the Civil War. At that time, the right to vote was provided by the Constitution, and soldiers from both the Union and the Confederacy depended on State law to determine whether they could vote ``in the field'' during wartime.

According to historians, there were two methods of voting then. In the first system, a closed ballot box was taken to the field of battle, the ballots were cast there, and the box returned to the jurisdiction. States at the time questioned whether the act of voting outside their jurisdictions could be authorized by State law.

Other objections to voting ``in the field'' were heard when a State constitution prescribed the place, time and manner of elections; and if military voting was conducted prior to Election Day, whether early voting would violate State constitutions.

The second type of voting was known as ``proxy voting.'' A soldier's completed ballot was mailed to someone, such as a family member, in the soldier's regular place of voting. This completed proxy vote would then be delivered on Election Day. My home State of New York used the proxy vote procedure during the Civil War. While proxy voting avoided the constitutional problems of voting ``in the field,'' it was subject to other problems: the lack of a secret ballot; the transmission of the proxy ballot to the place of voting, and concerns about fraud.

Given the pressure to ensure that soldiers' rights were not diminished by their service, States in both the North and South passed laws to allow for voting for Federal office. President Lincoln, in addition to presiding over the War Department's filing of the first military voting regulations on October 1, 1864, intervened with his generals directly to ensure that those soldiers who could vote be given that right.

In an 1864 letter to GEN William Rosecrans, President Lincoln wrote these stern words: ``I have a report that you incline to deny the soldiers the right of attending the election in Missouri. . . . Wherever the law allows soldiers to vote their officers must also allow it.''

Eighty years later, with the country locked in the crisis of the Second World War, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt sent a very pointed Message to the United States Congress on the same issue. It begins: ``The American people are very much concerned over the fact that the vast majority of the eleven million members of the armed forces of the United States are going to be deprived of their right to vote in the important national election this fall, unless the Congress promptly enacts adequate legislation. . . . The men and women who are in the armed forces are rightfully indignant about it. They have left their homes and jobs and schools to meet and defeat the enemies who would destroy all our democratic institutions, including our right to vote. [They] cannot understand why the fact that they are fighting should disqualify them from voting.''

President Roosevelt foreshadows the issues we are still fighting to fix when he further advised Congress:

By the 1944 elections, there will be than five million

Americans outside the limits of the United States in our

armed forces and merchant marine. They and the millions more

who will be stationed within the US waiting the day to join

their comrades on the battle-fronts, will all be subject to

frequent, rapid, and unpredictable transfer to other points

outside and inside the United States.

He concluded by arguing that ``. . . What is needed is a complete change of machinery for absentee balloting, which will give [the armed forces] all over the world an opportunity to cast their ballots without time-consuming correspondence. . . .''

I am subjecting us all to a bit of a history lesson here because I believe this is a very fundamental--and yet unresolved--issue facing our military and our system of elections. We meet again, 65 years after President Roosevelt's Message to Congress, and 145 years after President Lincoln's directive to let soldiers vote, to again address fundamental improvements to military and overseas voting.

Building on the tools already in law, this legislation creates a system of improved access with multiple fail-safes built into the process. We use new technology to create more options for registration and ballot delivery, and at long last provide enough time for the military service men and women to vote. The lost letter, the late delivery, the ballot not notarized, and the last-minute troop transfer should no longer impede these voters from having their votes counted.

What we did in the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act will have a direct and dramatic impact on the rights of military voters.

In May 2009, I chaired a hearing in the Committee on Rules and Administration on the problems that military and overseas voters face. What we heard was nothing short of shocking.

We learned that during the 2008 general election, our military and overseas voters still faced a complicated and convoluted system that made it impossible for many of them to have their votes counted.

The committee convened a study of last year's election, which revealed that more than one in four ballots requested by military and other overseas voters were never received by local election officials and, thus, never counted. Let me repeat: one in four ballots requested were never counted. We owe our men and women in uniform more. Does it make sense that they are fighting for the very freedoms that we enjoy, yet are unable to choose their Commander in Chief? No, it does not.

If we can deploy tanks, high-tech equipment, and food to the front lines, we can figure out a way to deliver ballots to our troops so that they can be returned and counted.

The MOVE Act does precisely that, correcting many of the flaws that riddle the absentee balloting process for overseas voters.

By modernizing the voting process, increasing accessibility to voter registration and balloting materials, and requiring election officials to send out

ballots to military and overseas voters in time for them to be returned and counted, this legislation--at long last--brings overseas voting into the 21st century.

Consider a letter one soldier sent to the Overseas Vote Foundation after the 2008 election, in which that solider said: ``I hate that because of my military service overseas, I was precluded from voting.'' That solider continued, ``Of all people, deployed servicemembers should have a guaranteed ability to vote.''

I say here on the floor of the Senate that I absolutely agree.

The MOVE Act will ensure that military and other overseas voters know how to register to vote and how to request an absentee ballot. They will receive their ballot in a timely manner, and have that ballot counted on election day.

How did we accomplish that goal? Through a number of simple, straightforward fixes to the overseas voting process:

First, this legislation gives the right to military and overseas voters to request--and requires States to send--registration materials, absentee ballot requests, and blank absentee ballots electronically. In the computer age, it is long past time we used technology to speed up the voting process. For many troops, this quick transmission of ballots will give them for the first time a sufficient number of days to vote.

Second, this legislation ensures that overseas voters have at least 45 days to complete their absentee ballots and return them to election officials. For those voters who have no access to electronic delivery of ballots, this should provide the time for a ballot to travel to Iraq or Afghanistan, and back to the local election official. This need was exposed by a 2009 Pew Charitable Trusts study aptly named ``No Time to Vote.''

This legislation also requires that military absentee ballots be sent through expedited mail procedures, further reducing the transmission time for voted ballots to make it back to local election officials.

In the Rules Committee hearing, we listened to the concerns of Air Force LTC Joseph DeCaro. One major concern he described was that there was no way to ensure that the ballots had been properly received by the election office. This legislation will allow military and overseas voters to determine whether their ballot has been received by the local election official. That way, if their ballots are not received, the voters can take steps to ensure a replacement vote is cast.

If a ballot is lost, or cannot be re-sent in time, we require the Department of Defense to create an online tool that allows military and overseas voters to identify all the races they are qualified to vote for, and submit a replacement ballot immediately. This ensures that troops can complete a full Federal ballot in time for the election.

The legislation prevents election officials from rejecting overseas absentee ballots for reasons not related to voter eligibility, like paper weight or notarization requirements. I ask you, how can a marine in Fallujah find a notary?

The legislation has the Department of Defense work with election officials to define and improve election data related to military and overseas voters. More accurate election data will reduce future problems and speed fixes to the voting process.

Finally, this legislation expands resources for overseas voters through the Federal Voting Assistance Program.

As a result of this new legislation, the Department of Defense will use online tools to train and inform its staff on crucial voting information. And all military servicemembers will receive uniform notices and information via e-mail prior to registration or election deadlines.

Finally, this legislation directs that every military installation have a place where soldiers can register to vote, update their registration information, and request an absentee ballot. Military voters, as they are transferred or reassigned to different bases, will be provided the opportunity to change their election information.

We also know that that there are improvements still to make. A pilot project included in the legislation will promote research into new technology to help assist future voters with absentee balloting. The tools and mandates set forth in this legislation are minimum requirements. And if technology can improve secure ballot transmission, we want that work done.

Again, it is simply unacceptable that those who fight to defend our freedom often face the greatest obstacles in exercising their right to vote.

While good work has been done in the past to improve military voting, I firmly believe that the MOVE Act has incorporated the best and strongest ideas on how to ensure a modern military receives every opportunity to cast their ballot. Working with States and local election officials, we must encourage prompt implementation of the MOVE Act so that the benefits of the act will impact voters in the 2010 elections.

In our Rules Committee hearing this May, I made the public commitment that we would not have another Federal election without these tools in place for our military voters, and I am very pleased that this act was agreed to by the House and Senate. I again thank our colleagues in this truly bipartisan effort, and I look forward to President Obama's signature on this important piece of legislation.

Madam President, I rise today in support of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Matthew Shepard was brutally murdered more than 11 years ago, and yet the bill that bears his name it still not law. Today, we will finally send this historic bill to President Obama for his signature.

Many of us here in Congress have fought for this day for years--my dear friend, the late Ted Kennedy, fought for this day for decades. It is a bittersweet day. For as much as this is a victory for all who stand for civil rights, it brings to mind those horrible crimes committed simply because an individual is gay, or black, or Latino, or Muslim, or because of any other aspect of their being.

These crimes must not be met with silence, but rather, with our loudest voices.

In an era in which we elected our first African-American president, we must condemn crimes based on racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, or any other small-minded and intolerant angst. We must act, as these are crimes inflicted not merely on individuals, but on entire communities. They are attacks meant to not only break bones, but to break spirits. These crimes know no state boundaries--they are a national problem.

And today we will present the President with a national response. But let me be clear: this legislation does not criminalize speech or hateful thoughts. It seeks only to punish action--violent action that undermines the core values of our Nation.

One particularly chilling hate crime occurred in my home state of New York less than two weeks ago. The victim, Jack Prince, was leaving a deli in College Point, Queens late at night when two men started yelling anti-gay slurs at him. Suddenly, the perpetrators began beating him, savagely breaking Jack's jaw, his ribs, and causing both of his lungs to collapse. This crime, which was caught on video, shook the entire gay community.

This legislation sends a clear message to Jack's perpetrators and to all others: In America, we do not tolerate acts of violence motivated by hatred. In America, you are free to be yourself, and you should never be attacked for being so.

The time for waiting is over. The time for silence is over.

With the Matthew Shepard Act, we are helping local law enforcement stamp out crimes like the one committed earlier this month and punish its perpetrators. With the Matthew Shepard Act, we are saying, ``Enough!''

And, with the Matthew Shepard Act, we are honoring a brave soul. I personally want to thank Judy Shepard and all who continue to fight alongside her to make sure that we not only remember her son's life, but that we continue to strive for a better America.

For one last time, let me say: I urge my colleagues to support the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, may I inquire, what is the business before the Senate?

Mr. President I rise, regrettably, to oppose the conference report for the fiscal year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act. For the record, this will be the first Defense authorization bill I have voted against in my 15 years in Congress.

There are many provisions in this bill with which I agree and strongly agree that represent major steps forward in support of our men and women in uniform and the national security responsibilities of the United States. For example, the bill includes a significant pay raise for our troops, re-authorizes numerous bonuses and special pays, authorizes billions of dollars of much needed military construction, both in the United States as well as overseas, and authorizes $6.7 billion for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles or MRAPs.

Also, the bill includes the Military and Overseas Voting Empowerment Act, which I worked on in conjunction with Senators Schumer, Ben Nelson, Cornyn and Bennett and which was cosponsored by over half this body. The MOVE Act is one of the most substantive and comprehensive military and overseas voting reforms we have seen in years. It will fix a significant problem we have had in this country, that of the men and women of our military; who are putting their lives in

harm's way being denied the ability to, No. 1, have the opportunity to vote, and No. 2, to have their vote counted.

However, the bill includes at least three provisions which I strongly oppose, and for those reasons I cannot support this final bill.

First, the bill includes hate crimes legislation, which I firmly believe is unnecessary, irresponsible, and certainly not germane to this bill. There is little evidence that indicates that violent crimes, motivated by hate, go unpunished in the United States. Every single State has criminal laws that prohibit the antisocial behavior addressed by hate crimes legislation, including laws against murder, rape, arson, assault, and battery.

I oppose the creation of Federal hate crimes legislation for several reasons. First, I do not believe the Federal Government should interfere with the criminal laws already on the books in our States.

Second, this hate crimes legislation would establish a protected class of crime victims who would receive special protection under the law.

Finally, we already have laws to prosecute individuals who commit violent crimes. Those people guilty of violent crimes against anyone should and will be prosecuted under existing law and should be punished to the hilt when found guilty. For all these reasons, I strongly oppose the hate crimes legislation in this bill.

Secondly, the bill contains no funding for the procurement of additional F-22s. On May 19, 2009, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General Schwartz, affirmed under oath that 243 is the right number of F-22s to have in our inventory. Nevertheless, inclusion of additional F-22 funding received a veto threat from the administration and funding was stripped out of the Senate bill after an unbelievable lobbying effort coming out of the Pentagon and the White House.

I readily acknowledge there is a difference of opinion on this issue and that others do not necessarily share my views on this subject. However, what I will not acknowledge is that support for additional F- 22s is simply an example of doing business as usual and the influence of special interests. Congress is entitled to disagree with the executive branch on significant procurement and policy decisions, and there are countless examples of where we have done so and history has proven Congress to be right. Time will tell, but the F-22 may very well be an example of where the supporters of the program were, without question, correct.

I hope we are never put in a position as a country where we once again must fight to maintain air dominance, but there is not a single weapon in our inventory that ensures that we will maintain air dominance other than the F-22. The F-35 is a great weapon system, but we now know it is going to be delayed by 2 years.

It was kind of interesting that the announcement on the 2-year delay on the F-35 came out about 3 or 4 days after the final vote on the Defense authorization bill on this floor. But the F-35 is an air-to- ground weapon system that will not guarantee us the air superiority the F-22 will. If we are going to rely on 187 F-22s from an air dominance standpoint in every potential sector of the world, against every potential adversary, it is simply not enough. General Schwartz was right when he said 243 is a more correct number. I believe stopping production at 187 puts our Nation at high risk in the near to midterm, and there is no reason our Nation should accept that amount of risk given our global responsibilities.

Third, section 1041 of the bill provides for the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United States. While the bill specifies conditions for transfer as well as requiring a plan for each detainee who is transferred; the bill nevertheless allows for the transfer of those detainees. The conditions for the transfer of those detainees are similar to those that are present in the fiscal year 2010 Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill which I voted against earlier this week.

I made a much more detailed statement at that time about my reasons why I was voting against that bill relative to this issue of the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United States, but that bill authorized the transfer of detainees to the United States for the purpose of prosecuting the detainees or for detaining them during legal proceedings. This bill allows the transfer of detainees not just for that purpose but for any purpose. This will allow those detainees to have access to U.S. criminal courts, which I strongly oppose, because these are individuals who were arrested on the battlefield, not by the FBI or local police or any other law enforcement agency inside the United States. These are battlefield combatants. This also goes against the will of the American people and opens up the possibility that these detainees may one day be released in the United States. Therefore, I cannot support this provision in the underlying bill.

Mr. President, I strongly support our troops, and I support the missions we have asked them to carry out. Shortly, I will be going back to Afghanistan for my third trip. I also have been to Iraq on eight different occasions, and I get very emotional and excited about the opportunity to look our men and women in the eye, with their boots on the ground, and tell them how much we Americans appreciate the great job they are doing. I am going to continue to support them in every way possible. But the fact is, here we have provisions in a Defense authorization bill that go against the will of the American people and that, frankly, don't have much of anything to do with our troops in theater as well as our troops here.

So, Mr. President, regrettably, I am going to be opposing this bill on the grounds of the issues I have outlined.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, I rise today to commemorate the 70th anniversary of Colquitt Regional Medical Center in my hometown of Moultrie, GA. For seven decades, residents of southwest Georgia have been fortunate not only to have a state-of-the-art facility but also to be served by a hospital that has boasted visionary leadership.

Back in 1935, the Public Works Administration approved $50,000 for a new hospital in Moultrie, but only if the community could match those funds. That is when Moultrie businessman W.C. Vereen stepped up and pledged $50,000 and, in turn, made his offer contingent on the community matching his funds. Thereafter, a grassroots campaign to build a hospital was born, at a total of $140,500--a very significant amount of money in those days.

On October 17, 1939, the Vereen Memorial Hospital was dedicated, and the first operation was performed a week later.

From those humble beginnings, the now-rechristened Colquitt Regional Medical Center has grown into a comprehensive health care facility, boasting medical services that include dialysis, physician offices, oncology, and a home health care component, among others.

It speaks volumes about the community, the camaraderie, and the success of Colquitt Regional Medical Center to know that in 70 years, this hospital has had only four CEOs, and the first one only served for 2 years.

Its first two CEOs--Pierina Egan and Nora Manning, both of whom obviously were female--in addition to dealing with the day-to-day challenges of managing a hospital, also had to contend with growing the facility and coping with a doctor shortage brought on by World War II.

Ms. Manning was succeeded by Millard Wear, who served as CEO for 14 years and oversaw the creation of a brandnew 126-bed facility.

In 1982, Mr. Wear was succeeded by the very able Jim Lowry, who continues to head the hospital to this day. Under Mr. Lowry's tutelage, Colquitt Regional Medical Center has become a force to be reckoned with in physician and specialist recruitment. It has also undergone four expansion projects and added off-campus facilities, making it a truly regional endeavor.

In 1992, Colquitt Regional Medical Center was named the Georgia Hospital Association Rural Hospital of the Year. In 2007, it received the hospital association's Community Leadership Award. It has consistently performed at the top of Georgia's hospitals in patient satisfaction.

On a personal note, my son Bo was born at Colquitt Regional. I have had the unfortunate situation of needing five surgeries at Colquitt Regional but was very fortunate to be treated by the very finest doctors our country has to offer and a very skilled and excellent group of nurses. All of the employees and operators at Cochran Regional--from the professionals, the administration, as well as the day-to-day personnel, including our pink ladies, who are our volunteers--do an outstanding job of making this hospital a truly fine medical facility serving a very broad area in the rural southwest part of my State.

The folks at Colquitt Regional Medical Center do a tremendous job in serving the community. In fact, they also constitute a large part of our community in southwest Georgia, and we are thankful to have them in our midst. I congratulate Colquitt Regional Medical Center on 70 wonderful years of service.

With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today, the Senate begins consideration of the conference report to accompany this year's national defense authorization bill providing our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and their families with the support they need and deserve. This is a responsibility I do not take lightly, especially during a time of war. It is a responsibility my good friend and colleague Senator Levin understands very well. I thank and commend Senator Levin for his skill in shepherding this bill through the conference process in a bipartisan fashion. I thank Senator Levin for his leadership. I thank him for his commitment to the men and women who are serving in the military and the long relationship we have enjoyed working together as colleagues in that effort.

The conference report largely supports the defense priorities laid out by Secretary Gates and authorizes over $550 billion in base program funding for the Department of Defense and the national security programs of the Department of Energy.

Additionally, the legislation authorizes over $129 billion in overseas contingency operations funding for ongoing activities in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other regional operations and support of the war on terrorism.

The conference report demonstrates our bipartisan support for the men and women of the Armed Forces and their families and provides them with the pay, benefits, equipment, and training they need and deserve.

The report increases benefits for our wounded warriors and provides an across-the-board pay raise for our military.

The report terminates production of the F-22 aircraft, contains no funding for additional C-17 cargo aircraft, provides full funding for procurement of 30 Joint Strike Fighters, and fully authorizes funding to train and equip the Afghan National Army and police forces.

I am disappointed that we are unable to eliminate funding for the continued development of the alternative engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. As Secretary Gates said, ``This program is unnecessary and could disrupt the overall

JSF Program by diverting resources away from efforts needed for the continuation of that program.''

During the more than 20 years Senator Levin and I have worked together, we have had our share of respectful disagreements, and this year is no exception. I strongly disagree with the majority's decision to include hate crimes legislation in the national defense authorization bill. I have consistently opposed attaching hate crimes legislation to the national defense authorization bill in years past. This year, I again objected to the inclusion of this nongermane, nonrelevant language as an amendment to the defense authorization bill when the bill was being considered on the floor of the Senate. Today, I remain strongly opposed to its inclusion in the conference report. The defense authorization bill is not the appropriate vehicle for consideration of hate crimes legislation. It is not germane to the work of the Armed Services Committee. The stand-alone legislation, S. 909, has not even been considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee, where it could have been debated, modified, improved, and brought to the floor of the Senate. What we are doing here is an abuse of the Senate process.

I also object to the language itself because it would create a new Federal crime for willfully causing bodily injury to any person due to the actual or perceived race, national origin, religion, or gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability of any person.

I do not believe an expansion of the Federal criminal code is necessary to cover a certain class of citizens from ``perceived injustices.''

Let me tell you one of the biggest problems I have here. We have now seen a virtual disappearance of authorization bills for various functions of government from Senate consideration. We have done that because extraneous and nongermane issues have been raised on those authorization bills. I don't remember the last time we had authorization bills for foreign operations out of the Foreign Relations Committee. I don't know when we have had authorization for other branches of government. The reason is because they always get bogged down in extraneous amendments on both sides. I am not placing the blame on the other side. I am placing the blame on both sides. This then bogs down the legislation which then, because of the exigencies of time, means we are not able to address the proper authorizing process for many functions of government. That, then, throws it all into the appropriations process. Of course, that is now an enormous shift of power and authority and responsibility from the authorizing committees, in whom the responsibility should lie, to the appropriating committees which are simply only supposed to appropriate money for previously authorized functions of government. I worry a great deal about that.

The only bill that has been consistently passed for many years through the Senate and into law is the Defense authorization bill. The Defense authorization bill is vital. We are now starting a very dangerous precedent by adding a very large and controversial provision, which is nongermane and nonrelated to defense, to a Defense authorization bill.

As my friend Senator Levin will point out, there have been other times where provisions have been added to this bill which were nongermane. Nothing of this magnitude, nothing of the controversy that is associated with the hate crimes legislation which was tacked on to this bill without any consideration in the committee itself. There was no committee consideration. When the bill came to the floor, bang, the first amendment out of the box was the hate crimes legislation which, of course, tied up the legislation for some days.

I understand the realities around here. I know what majority votes are. I know what majority membership in this body means. It was jammed through. I want to tell my colleagues, if we allow hate crimes to be added to this Defense authorization bill, what is next? What pet project or legislation on the part of the majority leader or the majority will be included in the next authorization bill?

If this legislation is signed into law, it will force police and prosecutors to treat identical crimes differently depending on a police officer or prosecutor's determination of the political, gender, philosophical, or even religious beliefs of the offender. Our legal system is based on identifying, capturing, and punishing criminals, not on using the power of government to divine biases. Crimes motivated by hate deserve vigorous prosecution, and I strongly support punishing those who commit such heinous acts under existing laws. Moreover, I am committed to a full and transparent debate on the issue. But I strongly oppose using the men and women of the military as the vehicle to pass this controversial and partisan legislation.

The Detroit News editorialized:

Certainly, threats of violence or violence against

individuals for any reason should be prosecuted to the full

extent of the law. Not, however, because the victims are

members of a particular race or sex, adherents of a

particular religion or are gay. These crimes should be

punished because the victims are uniquely valuable

individuals who deserve the protection of the law solely on

that basis. The idea of special prosecutions for ``hate

crimes'' is inherently divisive.

I am pleased the conference report does retain some legislative language offered by Senator Brownback during Senate debate on the bill. The Brownback language clarifies that nothing in the hate crimes legislation language shall be construed as an infringement on Americans' first amendment rights. Additionally, his amendment ensures that nothing in the hate crimes language should be construed to overturn ``the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993'' that ensures our laws do not substantially burden Americans' free exercise of their religion.

The majority had the votes in July to add hate crimes to the Senate bill, and I am sure the majority will again have the votes today to invoke cloture on the conference report containing hate crimes language. It is indeed, unfortunate, that we are using the brave men and women in uniform as leverage to pass hate crimes legislation.

This legislation should have gone through the Judiciary Committee. That is the oversight committee. That is the committee of jurisdiction. I know my colleagues who are here on the floor will be justifying this legislation on the grounds of how badly it is needed. I say to the majority, who controls the legislative schedule here, they could have had this bill through the Judiciary Committee and on the floor of the Senate and passed in the Senate in the proper fashion and not put hate crimes on a bill that cares for the men and women serving in the military today. I worry a great deal about the precedent we will be setting by including an incredibly controversial piece of legislation in the Defense authorization bill which provides for our first and foremost obligation, and that is to secure the safety and welfare of our fellow citizens.

Finally, I believe it is important to note that the Defense authorization bill has been the only authorization bill that the U.S. Congress has consistently passed every year. Other authorization bills have often fallen under the weight of provisions inserted into must- pass bills that are not relevant to the legislation and highly controversial. The lives of our men and men serving abroad literally depend on our ability to consistently and reliably pass this authorization bill every year. I am not willing to take a gamble with our troops. For these reasons I cannot in good conscience vote to support the motion to invoke cloture on this bill, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Prior to the final vote on passage of the conference report, I plan to speak in more detail about the overall bill and the commitment we have made in this conference report to do everything possible to ensure our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines receive the support they deserve and need, as well as a message we need to send those brave men and women and their families whom we support and stand behind.

I will vote against cloture. I will vote for final passage of the legislation in deference to our need to care for the men and women who are serving. I also would point out that if cloture is not invoked, we could immediately pass a resolution reconvening the conference and get this bill done today. But that is not going to happen, unfortunately.

I yield the floor.