Thorium Energy Security Act of 2010

Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today that is intended to chart what I believe to be the proper course for the future of the nation's human space flight programs. This bill would provide an alternative to the Administration's proposed course of ending the government role in Human Space Flight and avoid the complete reliance on other nations or an as-yet-unproven commercial capability to launch American astronauts and scientists into space. It would also reaffirm the goals of moving beyond low-earth orbit and restore the kind of exciting vision that will help inspire young people to excel in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. The bill echoes the decision of the Obama administration to support the International Space Station, ISS, through at least the year 2020, as we endorsed in our NASA Authorization Act, passed in 2008. But the administration's proposal does nothing to ensure that we can fully maintain and utilize the space station, especially during the next 5 years. This bill would correct that, and ensure that full use of the space station is not an empty promise.

Since the release of the fiscal year 2010 Budget last year, the future of human space flight programs has been in question. As part of that Budget Request, the administration announced it would establish an independent review panel, chaired by my good friend Mr. Norman Augustine, to review U.S. Human Space Flight Plans and provide options for how those programs should proceed in the future.

The Augustine Panel completed its review in late August of last year, and provided its Summary Report to NASA, the White House, and the Congress on September 8, 2009. Shortly thereafter, the Subcommittee on Science and Space of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a hearing on the report with Mr. Augustine appearing as our witness. The Augustine Panel released its full report at the end of September, and we have all been awaiting the response of the Obama administration to the report.

When the fiscal year 2010 Budget was submitted in 2009, the budget request for Exploration Systems included a notation that the amount requested was a ``placeholder'' number, and that, once the Human Space Flight Plans Review Committee completed its work, the Administration would submit an amended budget request to support the programmatic decisions made as a result of that report. That never happened. Instead, the response to the Augustine Panel Report was left to the fiscal year 2011 Budget request, which we received on February 1st. Because of the administration's failure to offer a budgetary blueprint until the fiscal year 2011 budget, we will now experience yet another year's delay in undertaking the steps necessary to advance beyond the uncertainty about the future of human space flight programs that prompted the review.

The Augustine Panel provided five basic options for consideration, with an additional two options that were modifications of these five basic options. The Augustine Panel thus provided a total of seven approaches that could be taken to ensure America's continued leadership in space--to establish a space program ``worthy of a great nation,'' as suggested by the title of their final report. None of those options leapt out as the obvious, consensus answer to the mix of vehicle development options and strategies necessary to meet the challenges of the next generation of human space flight. There was, however, a clear consensus on two important points.

First, the Panel found that, without a significant increase in the total amount of funding made available to NASA, none of the options presented could be expected to succeed--including the current plans and programs for developing the Ares 1 and Ares V launch vehicles and the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle. The Panel's conclusion underscored what we in the authorizing committees have been saying for the past five years, and which formed the basis for the funding levels that we authorized in both our 2005 and 2008 NASA Authorization Acts, which would have led to a more timely and successful level of development for the vehicles to replace the space shuttle systems. The Bush administration, however, simply never requested that level of funding. In fact, the prior Administration even reduced the level of funding for those programs that had been projected in the run-out estimates included in the fiscal year 2005 Budget Request, which initiated the ``Vision for Exploration'' announced by President Bush on January 14, 2004.

Second, the Panel recommended that a decision be made to formally extend U.S. plans to operate and utilize the ISS through at least the year 2020. This was also consistent with guidance the authorizing committees provided in the 2008 NASA Authorization Act, where we directed NASA to take no steps to preclude operations of ISS through at least 2020, and directed the Agency to provide a plan which would outline how they would prepare to support and utilize the space station for that extended period of time. Up to that point, NASA's internal planning--and budget guidance from the Office of Management and Budget--was to cease operations aboard the space station in 2015, just five years after its assembly and outfitting would finally be completed by the remaining space shuttle flights.

Some of the good news in the fiscal year 2011 Budget Request is that the Obama administration agrees with the need to continue supporting the space station to at least 2020, and to expand and increase its utilization for research. That is welcome news. The problem is that the request does not provide the means to ensure that the extension and full utilization of the space station can be realized.

It is worth noting that after the budget reductions were made for Exploration in the 2006 Budget Request, the number of flights planned to complete space station assembly were reduced--at the direction of OMB for purely budgetary reasons--from 28 remaining flights to 17 flights, plus an optional added flight to conduct a final mission to service the Hubble Space Telescope. The effect of those reductions was to force NASA to change the planned payloads for those remaining 17 flights to try to accommodate the most important spare parts and replacement parts from the 10 ``cancelled'' flights, for ensuring the safe and effective operation and utilization of the station. Ten flights' worth of flight-ready payloads--averaging between 40,000 to 50,000 pounds per flight--were essentially relegated to storage warehouses where most of them remain today, ready to fly, ready to use, but with no guaranteed ``ticket to ride'' to be of any use to the station. Over 1,400 parts and pieces of equipment, Mr. President! What is most important to remember, is that the decisions about which instruments and equipment to swap into the remaining flights were based on the internal assumption of the need to support the ISS through 2015--not through 2020.

The result of this is that we do not know how many, or which, of those ``grounded payload'' items might actually be needed in order to ensure the station can be supported and maintained until 2020. Not only that, we do not know which, or how many, of them are simply too large or too heavy to be carried to orbit by any existing vehicle other than the space shuttle. And finally, we do not know what additional items might need to be ordered, manufactured and delivered in the future, or what launch vehicle capacity will be needed to deliver them to the station.

This is not the way a great nation should conduct its civil space program. This is not the way to ensure that a decision and pronouncement to continue operations through 2020 will not become an empty gesture due to the deterioration, damage, or failure of equipment and systems vital to providing the oxygen, water, power to make the ISS habitable and to support scientific research in the period following 2015.

This is just one example of the type of considerations that preparations that the Obama administration appears to have ignored while preparing its response to the Augustine panel Report. It is an issue I propose to address, among many, in the legislation being introduced today.

Since last May, when the President announced the appointment of a Committee to review U.S. Human Space Flight Plans, we have all been waiting for clear policy direction based on the report of that Committee, which was released in late September. Throughout that time, at my direction, my committee staff carefully followed the public meetings and briefings of the Augustine panel, and considered the implications of the various options discussed and eventually included in the panel's final report.

In the course of that ongoing review, as well as our Committee hearing last September, I began forming my own conclusions about the correct path for the future of U.S. human space flight programs, as is my responsibility as the Ranking Republican on the policy and oversight committee for NASA. The key factors driving my position regarding that path forward have been: the need to maintain U.S. leadership in space exploration, which I believe is essential to our economic and national security; the need to ensure we do not lose the skills, expertise and industrial capacity that are necessary to conduct space exploration; the need to ensure, as our Committee has in the previous two NASA Authorization bills we have developed and seen enacted into law, that NASA has both a balanced range of activities across its full mission responsibilities, and was authorized the funds needed to carry out that range of activities; and the need to protect--and capitalize on--our massive investment in the ISS, which, along with our international partners, is close to $100 billion. Now that it is almost completed and has a six-person permanent crew, we can begin to conduct the research that we have anticipated all these years during its construction. Research that has the potential to fundamentally change and enhance our understanding of physical processes, vaccine development, and a whole host of other research.

In order to meet those needs, we must first take steps to ensure we do not have an extended period of time during which there is no capability within the United States to launch humans into space, whether to the space station or any other destination. The easiest, most logical and obvious answer in the short term is to continue to use the one launch vehicle that already exists, has a proven history of 98.7 percent probability of success for each mission, and upon which the space station was designed, assuming the shuttle's availability throughout the station's on-orbit lifetime to provide support and maintenance.

Prematurely and voluntarily ending the space shuttle program without a near-term U.S.-built alternative on the horizon simply seems irresponsible, and that is an issue that I believe the Congress must address. While the Space Shuttle will never be completely safe, just as with any vehicle that must carry humans into the harsh environment of space, it is currently flying as safely, if not more safely, than it ever has.

The legislation I am introducing today would ensure that a final decision on the timing of the space shuttle retirement, or even the number of missions it might still be required to fly, would not be made until the issues involved are fully considered and resolved and we are fully convinced that the shuttle's capability is no longer needed. In particular, we must answer the question of how we support, maintain, and fully utilize the ISS, not just in 5 or more years, when any new commercially-developed vehicle might be available, but right now, as we are about to cut the ribbon on it as a finally completed research facility.

I have already mentioned the lack of complete information regarding the ability to adequately ensure the availability and deliverability of spare and replacements parts needed between now and 2020 to keep the space station fully and safely functional. All this is to underscore that the issue of whether to continue flying the shuttle, and the number of additional shuttle flights that are needed, is not simply a matter of shortening the gap between shuttle retirement and the availability of its replacement, or protecting a vitally important workforce. This issue also requires policy makers to understand what the space shuttle can do--and possibly do exclusively in the case of large, heavy replacement systems and structures--to ensure that the promise to extend the ISS to 2020 can actually be fulfilled. We must be certain the ISS can be kept alive and fully functioning over the next 10 years. Again, the administration's Budget Request offers no answers to how we will be able to deliver all the equipment necessary to extend the life of the ISS if the shuttle is not available.

I am also very concerned about the proposal to simply cancel the Constellation programs of Ares 1, the low-earth orbit crew launch vehicle, the Ares V Heavy Lift vehicle for enabling flights beyond low- Earth orbit, and the

Orion Crew Exploration capsule to carry the crews for both of those missions. It is very clear that many of my colleagues are also deeply concerned about this part of the President's budget. I simply believe any decision to terminate those projects needs much more consideration than I believe it has gotten during the preparation of the Obama administration's proposal for NASA.

The approach of the administration--their so-called ``bold new initiative''--is to turn to an entirely new approach based exclusively on the development of commercially-developed crew launch systems. There appears to have been little thought given to how we might leverage the $9 billion already spent on the Constellation vehicles in the identification of potential providers for those commercial systems. I believe that is wasteful and irresponsible and all but guarantees that commercial developments will start from scratch--and therefore take much longer to develop and be much more costly, in the long run, to the American taxpayers.

Another concern with this new approach is that we do not yet have any details about how the $6 billion proposed in the Budget Request for commercial space flight over the next 5 years will be allocated and what it will be expected to support. We don't know whether this will be a collaborative program, creating incentives for matching funding from the private sector, or whether it will represent more of a government subsidy to develop systems for which there may not be a sustainable market for those services beyond what NASA would purchase. I am philosophically and fundamentally opposed to such government subsidies, particularly when it is not clear that taxpayer funding for an approach like this won't have to be followed by even more taxpayer dollars to keep the systems available to meet the needs of the space station, or other government space projects.

The legislation I am proposing will address that issue by directing NASA to consider ``commercial'' options that include the possibility of agreements not only with the ``entrepreneurial'' start-up companies like SpaceX, which represent an exciting but still unproven set of vehicles designed to service a still non-existent commercial market, but also with other, longer-standing and experienced commercial companies. The key aerospace companies with whom NASA currently has development contracts might well be able to jointly develop a new launch system as a modification of their existing contracts under the Constellation program. They could combine their expertise and capability to transition their efforts toward developing a new launch capability based on existing shuttle main engines, external tank manufacturing capability, solid rocket motors, and the Orion crew vehicle. Something like that has been, I am told, a subject of informal conversations among those companies for some time. I believe we need to ensure through legislation that such an alternative will be fully evaluated and considered as one possible approach to the new ``commercial'' space systems development. We have not been given details of this possible approach, because those discussions are apparently still ongoing. But I believe we need to make sure there is a legislative underpinning that would at least allow the full consideration of that approach.

I would not view such an approach as precluding the continued pursuit of the current COTS, Commercial Orbital Transportation Systems, activities being pursued with SpaceX and Orbital Sciences Corporation for cargo delivery services for the Space Station. I have consistently supported that development and believe we should continue to do so. My concern, one I know that of a number of my colleagues share, is to ensure we have redundant and alternative means of providing U.S. human spaceflight capability. If one of those can be more fully commercial in nature, and something that can stand on its own without the taxpayers being responsible for their success, so much the better.

I will be working with my colleagues in the Senate, and reaching out to our counterparts in the House of Representatives, to ensure all of these issues are put on the table for discussion, using the vehicle of this legislation to provide an alternative view to that proposed by the Obama Administration.

This legislation actually tracks closely with the President's request, in terms of the amounts authorized for NASA. It authorizes programs largely at funding levels already enacted for fiscal year 2010, with some very minor exceptions, and at the same base account levels requested by the administration for fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012.

What my legislation adds is the authorization levels necessary to implement the potential continuation of space shuttle flights, at a greatly reduced annual level of flights and associated costs, as well as modest increases in the short-term for the establishment and support of an enterprise to be developed to manage and operate the U.S. National Laboratory.

The greatest difference, as I have indicated, is that this legislation points the way to what I believe is a more measured and reasoned approach that ensures the best use of investments we have already made, provides the Congress and the administration with necessary information to inform our judgments on alternative launch vehicle developments, and provides a means of avoiding severe economic dislocations in the aerospace industry and the highly skilled and dedicated workforce that has provided the capability for this nation to be the world leader in space exploration.

I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to state my strong support for the Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2010, which would repeal the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy in our Armed Forces.

I am one who believes that the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy has done more harm than good. The policy has forced American citizens to choose between serving their country and being honest about who they are; and, even worse, it has led to the discharge of some 13,000 brave men and women because their sexual orientation was discovered.

The criteria for serving in our Armed Forces should be competence, courage, and a willingness to serve; not race, gender, or sexual orientation.

The Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2010 would finally repeal ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' and create a policy of nondiscrimination in the military. That is the right thing to do, and I will support this legislation every step of the way.

The Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2010 would repeal the 1993 ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy; allow people who were removed under ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' to re-enter the military; establish a policy of nondiscrimination in the Armed Forces to prevent discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation; and require a Pentagon working group established by the Department of Defense to issue recommendations on how to implement repeal throughout the military.

The bill would also require the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress 180 days after enactment on what actions are being taken to ensure that any school that does not allow a ROTC unit on its campus does not receive Federal funds.

It is important for people to realize that ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' is not an abstract policy. This policy has had real and harmful effects on our military readiness by denying able and willing men and women the opportunity to serve, and by requiring the discharge of brave individuals who have served courageously and even risked their lives for their country.

Let me give you just a few of the thousands of examples:

Anthony Woods, of Fairfield, CA, graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and went on to serve two tours of duty in Iraq, including in Operation Iraqi Freedom. He earned the Bronze Star and Army Commendation Medal, and all 81 soldiers who served under his leadership in Iraq returned home safely to the United States. Mr. Woods was discharged from the U.S. Army in 2008 because of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell.''

MAJ Margaret Witt joined the U.S. Air Force in 1987 and served as a flight nurse for 18 years. She received numerous awards, including the Meritorious Service Metal, Air Medal, and the Air Force Commendation Medal. In 2003, President Bush noted in citation that her ``airmanship and courage directly contributed to the successful accomplishment of important missions under extremely hazardous conditions.'' Major Witt was discharged 6 years ago after the Air Force received a tip that she was gay. Major Witt has challenged her case in court because, as she says, ``I joined the Air Force because I wanted to serve my country. I have loved being in the military--my fellow airmen have been my family. I am proud of my career and want to continue doing my job. Wounded people never asked me about my sexual orientation. They were just glad to see me there.'' The case is currently pending before the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, CA.

LT Daniel Choi, originally from Orange County, CA, also graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. He is an Arabic linguist and served as an infantry officer in Iraq in 2006 and 2007, but he was recommended for discharge from the U.S. Army after announcing last year that he was gay. Lieutenant Choi has said that: ``The lessons of courage, integrity, honesty and selfless service are some of the most important. . . . I refuse to lie to my commanders. I refuse to lie to my peers. I refuse to lie to my subordinates. I demand honesty and courage from my soldiers. They should demand the same from me.'' The New York National Guard has recently indicated that they will allow Lieutenant Choi to begin participating in drills with the unit again. LTC Paul Fanning, a spokesperson for the New York Guard, has stated: ``We do not have an issue with it. It's a deeply personal thing. To us a soldier is a soldier is a soldier.''

Veteran U.S. Marine Bob Lehman, of San Diego, CA, served in the gulf war in the 1990s and was never dismissed for being gay. He has explained that, ``Nobody in my unit knew artillery better than I did, including the officers. During combat, the gay thing didn't even exist. My biggest fear was bringing my guys home alive.'' However, Mr. Lehman has said he believes that the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy forces U.S. soldiers into a moral dilemma. ``Marines don't lie, cheat or steal. It was hard to lie . . . There was a lot of denial and depression because of the inability to be out openly, (the fear) that I might get fired.''

Courageous men and women like these should be applauded for their service, not discharged for their sexual

orientation. The Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2010 would ensure that is the case and would require the military to readmit anyone who was discharged solely because of their sexual orientation and is otherwise willing and able to serve.

The ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy has long been a contentious one, and I do not state my support for repeal lightly.

It is absolutely essential that we undertake this project with great care, so that repeal of the policy will enhance military readiness and the effect will be positive for all of our servicemembers in the field.

I am confident that we are up to the task of doing so.

In the last few months alone, high ranking officials from various components of the military have come forward to say that repeal is not only feasible, it is the right thing to do. For example:

ADM Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that, ``Speaking for myself and myself only, it is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do. No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.''

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates testified at the same hearing that, ``I fully support the president's decision. The question before us is not whether the military prepares to make this change, but how we best prepare for it.''

Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus has said, ``I support the repeal of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'' I do think the President has come up with a very practical and workable way to do that to work through the working group that the Secretary of Defense has set up, to make sure that we implement any change in the law that Congress makes in a very professional and very smooth manner, and without any negative impacts on the force.''

Retired General Colin Powell issued an official statement expressing that ``In the almost 17 years since the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' legislation was passed, attitudes and circumstances have changed. I fully support the new approach presented to the Senate Armed Services Committee this week by Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen.''

These military leaders believe repeal is not only feasible, it is right. According to the University of California, military leaders in many other countries agree. Twenty-five countries currently have policies allowing gay servicemembers to serve openly in their militaries, including 15 NATO countries, Australia and Israel.

This year, Secretary Gates has appointed a Pentagon working group to study in great detail how repeal can be implemented in a manner that will enhance the readiness and effectiveness of our troops. This group, led by Army General Carter Ham and Pentagon General Counsel Jeh Johnson, is tasked with engaging troops and their families at all levels of the Armed Forces to determine what changes will be necessary in regulations, in education and training practices, and in military policy to implement a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in our Armed Forces. The study will be careful, and the review will be comprehensive.

The time has come to repeal ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'' I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2010. I am confident that our military will be stronger and better when this bill becomes law.

Mr. President, I rise today, joined by my colleague Senator Ensign, to introduce legislation that will provide children with safe, healthy, and academically focused afterschool programs.

The Improving 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act of 2010 is endorsed by the Afterschool Alliance, an organization representing more than 25,000 public, private, and non-profit afterschool providers dedicated to expanding access to high quality afterschool programs, as well as a broad coalition of other local and national organizations.

They, and I, have committed to providing quality afterschool care because the record is clear: students who regularly attend afterschool programs have better grades and behavior in school, better peer relations and emotional adjustment, and lower incidences of drug use, violence, and pregnancy. When kids have something productive to do in the hours between when they are let out of school and when their parents get home from work, they are more likely to avoid the traps of risky behavior, more likely to be physically healthy and academically successful, and more likely to fulfill their potential.

As co-chairs of the Afterschool Caucus, Senator Ensign and I have worked to expand awareness of these benefits by organizing annual briefings, sharing research, and advocating fiercely for a focus on afterschool care when we talk about how to give our kids the best opportunities possible.

While we know that afterschool care works, the truth is that too many

American kids don't have access to good programs. More than 15 million children--from kindergarten through 12th grade--spend time unsupervised in the hours after school. That includes an incredible 40,000 kindergartners and nearly 4 million middle school students in grades six to eight.

When the bell rings and the school day ends, these kids face some 3 hours of unscheduled, often unsupervised time before their parents get home from work. Those are rarely productive hours, and, worse, those are the hours during which these children are most likely to experiment with risky behaviors.

We can do better for our kids.

The Improving 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act of 2010 has three goals. First, to enhance the quality and sustainability of afterschool programs. Second, to emphasize physical fitness and wellness programs as part of our nationwide effort to reduce childhood obesity, and third, to encourage service learning.

Our legislation provides States with tools designed to keep quality programs going. It would allow program grantees the ability to renew their grants if they can show that the programs are working. It gives states the option to expand technical assistance functions to improve the quality of afterschool programs.

Our legislation will increase opportunities for young Americans to be more physically active. The administration has put a focus on reducing obesity--one of the easiest medical conditions to recognize, but one of the most difficult to treat--among our children. Obesity costs our society as much as $147 billion each year--and the best way to stop it is to encourage our kids to be more active. Afterschool programs offer a tremendous opportunity to do just that, and our legislation includes such wellness efforts in the list of programs that can receive support.

Our legislation encourages kids to get involved in service learning and youth development activities. Service learning integrates student- designed service projects with academic studies. This type of program has been shown to strengthen student engagement, enhance student achievement, lower drop-out and suspension rates, develop workforce and leadership skills, and provide opportunities for teamwork.

Of course, as we offer this legislation, I must also remind my colleagues that afterschool programs only work with sufficient funding. In a difficult economy, it is even more important to focus on empowering these programs. Studies have shown that afterschool care can reduce worker absenteeism by as much as 30 percent and reduce worker turnover by up to 60 percent. Decreased worker productivity related to parental concerns about afterschool care costs our economy up to $300 billion each year. Approximately 1 in 10 children is currently enrolled in afterschool care. However, 2/3 of parents with children who do not participate in a program would enroll their children in afterschool if they had that option. We should work to give them that option.

The Improving 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act is a positive step towards offering all of our children the chance to spend their afternoons safely and productively. It is a step towards making good on the most important promise: the one we make to our kids. I hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this important legislation.

Mr. President, we just had a press conference this afternoon with reference to don't ask, don't tell, the action we want to take in the Senate for our military people. I would like to make some brief remarks in that regard.

I come to the floor today because I believe in a basic principle, not just a political cause. I come to the floor because courage and valor are blind to race, religion, philosophy, and sexual orientation. I believe every single man and woman who puts on a military uniform is equally deserving of our thanks and our respect, and that when we dismiss the sacrifices made by those with a different sexual orientation, we undermine the strength of our fighting forces. When we fail to recognize the brave contributions gay and lesbian soldiers continue to make every single day, we diminish ourselves as much as we diminish their service. That is why I am pleased to join the following colleagues: Chairman Lieberman, Chairman Levin, Senator Gillibrand, Senator Udall of Colorado, and Senator Wyden in introducing legislation to repeal the military's don't ask, don't tell

policy, a policy which is discriminatory, outdated, and detrimental to our national security.

Let me start by addressing every service man and woman, to those who have served in our Armed Forces in the past. Let's give them a big shout out and a big thank-you. This Nation honors the service and sacrifice of all our veterans and those who are still serving today. Let me say the days of serving in silence--those days are numbered. This legislation will recognize that every soldier, sailor, airman, and marine is equal to every other warrior, so no one will be forced to lie about who they are if they wish to serve this country.

I know there are some who believe this is too big a change, that it is not right and we need to wait. To them I would say it boils down to basic fairness. I remind them that the U.S. military has made policy changes before and with resounding success. The repeal of don't ask, don't tell is not just another vote for me, it is a very personal issue of basic fairness. When I was about 6 or 7 years old, I have a vivid memory of my family members who went off to war, my uncles and uncles- in-law and great uncles who chose to go to war and defend our country, regardless of the color of their skin or occupation or who they were as an individual. That choice defined them as patriots.

I have never forgotten their patriotism or their commitment to this country. But I have also never forgotten that the U.S. military was very different in those days. My family members volunteered to protect this Nation, but simply because of who they were, they had limited opportunities to serve. For all their skill, their talent, their intelligence, and their valor, they were forced to choose among two or three roles. They were forced to either be a cook or forced to dig ditches or forced to drive trucks. The only thing that separated my uncles from their brothers in arms was the color of their skin. But in those days, some people argued that racial integration would undermine the cohesion of our fighting forces. Yet the U.S. military came to recognize this was not the case and successive generations proved that everyone who volunteered to serve was capable of the same patriotism, bravery, and heroism.

That memory is especially crisp as I stand in this Chamber to bring an end to this discriminatory policy that forces our best and brightest to be willing to die for our Nation, while denying they are who they truly are. This, too, is an issue of basic fairness.

More than 60 years ago, President Truman recognized the wisdom of integrating the Armed Forces. He understood that in so doing, the Armed Forces grew stronger and the Nation safer. Today we recognize it is time to end don't ask, don't tell. This repeal of don't ask, don't tell will allow our servicemembers to live their lives openly, honestly, and still fight for the country we all love. So, regardless of sexual orientation or race or any other factor, today we stand to say we are grateful to the brave patriots who chose to defend our Nation and we salute them.

This is about fairness. This is about more than right versus left or Republican versus Democrat. This is about fighting for those who fight for us every day. Ending this policy is the fair thing to do, it is the right thing to do, and it is long overdue.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce bipartisan legislation that will protect the unique ecosystems of the American West from the harmful effects of invasive, non-native species. I am joined by my cosponsors Senators Begich, Bennet of Colorado, Bennett of Utah, Feinstein, Merkley, Murkowski, and Wyden.

The Invasive Species Emergency Response Fund provides resources to prevent the introduction and spread of harmful invasive species; protect susceptible habitats; and establish early detection and rapid response capabilities to combat incipient invasive species populations.

As global climate change patterns shift, particular habitats in the West will be especially vulnerable to the impacts of new species introductions. Hence, the new paradigms in invasive species management provided via this legislation are critically needed. When it comes to invasive species management, history is replete with examples illustrating the adage that ``an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.''

The impact of invasive species in the U.S. is now widespread. More than 6,500 non-native, invasive species have become established populations throughout the U.S. Studies show that the damage caused by these pests and their associated control costs total more than $100 billion annually. The unique ecologies of the West are particularly vulnerable to their harmful effects.

My home State of Nevada is at the center of this ecological storm. Non-native species decrease rangeland capacity; lower water tables; reduce water quality; increase fuel loads; and displace native plants and wildlife habitats. Some in the environmental community have identified the Great Basin as the third most endangered ecosystem in the U.S. due, in part, to the dominance of invasive species.

Moreover, once invasive species have gained a foothold in Western States, they exacerbate other critical issues, including water quantity and quality, and wildfire. Zebra mussels in Lake Mead are poised to wreak havoc on the lake's water quality. Tamarisk's long tap roots infiltrate deep water tables, exploiting up to 200 gallons of water per tree per day. Millions of acres of cheatgrass and beetle-killed trees stand ready to burn if sparked. In fact, the fire cycle in the Great Basin has shortened from 25-50 years to only 3-5 years as a direct result of the take-over of invasive weeds.

These few examples underscore the need for this long overdue legislation. State and local agencies and organizations that fight invasive species need access to resources when a new threat is identified, not when funds are available based on bureaucratic budget cycle.

The revolving loan program established with this bill will provide qualified organizations with the resources they need to tackle invasive species threats within 90 days. The Secretary of the Interior will ensure that these funds are being used for appropriate projects based on vetted review criteria.

Bark beetles, quagga mussels, and Medusahead have no respect for budget cycles or State lines. Hence, I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation. It is paramount if we want to protect our unique Western landscape.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.