Floor Statements

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. President, I am pleased to pay tribute to a distinguished religious leader in Saginaw, MI, Pastor Rufus Bradley, Jr. Pastor Bradley will be honored at a banquet on September 25, 2010, by his church family. The banquet will celebrate his 30 years of ministry and his 23 years as Pastor of New Life Baptist Church Ministries.

Since accepting his call to the ministry, Pastor Bradley has persistently sought to encourage and enlighten his congregation, and through these efforts, has earned the respect and admiration of people throughout Michigan. His pastoral leadership and commitment to service is admirable, and The New Life Baptist Church Ministries has flourished under his spiritual guidance. Through his stewardship and many community-based efforts such as the ``Mission in the City Movement,'' Pastor Bradley has provided much needed assistance to those most in need in the greater Saginaw community.

Before becoming pastor of New Life, Pastor Bradley studied theology under the tutelage of several well-known religious leaders. He also earned a bachelor's degree from the United Theological Seminary in Monroe, LA, and is a graduate of the Beeson Institute for Advanced Church Leadership. Pastor Bradley is a family man and is supported by his wife, Relinda Bradley. They have enjoyed 32 wonderful years together and are the proud parents of two children, June and Rufus, Jr.

I know my colleagues join me in congratulating Pastor Bradley on 30 years of pastoral leadership and faithful service to the greater Saginaw community. We wish him the best as he continues this important work for many more years.

Madam President, I have long supported the rights of workers to form unions, and I support the National Mediation Board's new rule allowing those in the rail and airline industries to form a union based on the votes cast by a simple majority, a basic principle of democracy.

Under the previous rule, a vote not cast was counted as a vote against the union, in spite of the fact that it is impossible to discern the intention of someone not casting a vote. The new rule adopted by the National Mediation Board mirrors the practice of the National Labor Relations Board, which oversees union elections in other sectors, and it mirrors the rules by which we choose our elected officials: the only votes counted are those actually cast.

Discontinuing this unfair and undemocratic practice was the right thing for the National Mediation Board to do. The new rule is fair to all parties, and is consistent with our democratic traditions. For this reason, I do not support the Isakson resolution opposing this new regulation.

Mr. President, the Senate once again has an opportunity to defend the public's confidence in our democratic system. In July, we missed this opportunity by failing to approve a motion to proceed to the DISCLOSE Act, a vital step in preserving the transparency and integrity of our elections. I urge my colleagues not to repeat that mistake. We should take up, debate, and pass the DISCLOSE Act.

Nearly a year ago, the Supreme Court discarded decades of precedent and concern for the health of our democracy when it decided on a 5-4 vote to eliminate regulations on corporate expenditures on elections. I strongly disagreed with that decision, but it is now the law of the land, and we are left with the task of trying to preserve the ability of individual Americans to be heard in a political process that could be swamped by a flood of corporate money.

The DISCLOSE Act requires corporations, unions, or advocacy organizations to stand by their advertisements and inform their members about their election-related spending. It imposes transparency requirements, requires spending amounts to be posted online, and prevents government contractors, corporations controlled by foreigners, and corporate beneficiaries of TARP funds from spending money on elections. I am an original cosponsor of the act because I believe it is essential to protect public confidence in the integrity of our elections.

By establishing these requirements, we will not prevent corporations from engaging in the activities the Supreme Court has allowed. We are simply giving Americans the ability to see how these companies, unions and other groups are seeking to influence the political process. This should not be an issue of Republicans and Democrats.

We should all agree that our democracy is best served when its election campaigns are conducted transparently.

The American people are depending on us to defend the integrity of the political process. We should not fail to uphold that responsibility. I urge my colleagues to debate and adopt adopt this vital legislation.

Mr. President, I hope we will proceed to the Defense authorization bill this afternoon. The Senator from Maine, as far as I am concerned, has raised a very legitimate question about whether amendments will be offerable to this bill, and the majority leader has spoken on that on the Record. This is what he said last Thursday. He said:

. . . in addition to issues I have talked about in the last

couple days, there are many other important matters that both

sides of the aisle wish to address. I am willing to work with

Republicans on a process that will permit the Senate to

consider these matters and complete the bill as soon as

possible, which likely will be after the recess.

So the majority leader has said he is more than willing to engage in that process.

If that process does not lead to a fair result, then--if we can get to the bill--if the Republicans feel there has not been adequate opportunity to offer amendments, the opportunity will be there to prevent the passage of the bill until those amendments are considered. This is the normal process. But to deny an opportunity to move to the bill so we can engage in a debate on amendments and so we hopefully will have an opportunity, as we should, to debate amendments on the bill, it seems to me is prejudging the outcome of the debate.

The time to determine whether there has been adequate opportunity to debate the bill is after you have had an opportunity to debate the bill. That judgment cannot be made in advance, particularly in the face of the majority leader's assurance. I agree with the Senator from Maine that it is important this assurance be there. It is there, it was there, in part, because of the issue she has raised over the last few days.

When the majority leader says let us get to the bill because he agrees--he has talked about a number of issues, but in addition to the issues which he has talked about, which include a debate on don't ask, don't tell, include a debate on the DREAM Act--in his words, ``there are many other important matters that both sides of the aisle wish to address'' and that he is ``willing to work with Republicans on a process that will permit the Senate to consider these matters and complete the bill as soon as possible, which likely will be after the recess.''

But we need to get to the bill. We need to get to the bill so we can then begin to debate amendments. I think many Senators have amendments they want to offer. It is not unusual on a Defense authorization bill. We usually have hundreds of amendments that are offered. Last year, I believe we adopted something like 60 amendments. That process will again occur but only if we can get to the bill.

To insist in advance there be an agreement, let me tell you, as manager of the bill, I love unanimous consent agreements. I love time limits. I love time agreements. I love agreements to limit amendments. That is fine. But until you get to the bill, you are not in a position to work out such agreements. These are theoretical issues. We do not even know what amendments are going to be offered to this bill--until we get to the bill. How can you have an agreement on what amendments will be in order when we have not gotten to the bill and the amendments are not even filed?

So it is a legitimate point the Senator from Maine makes that she wants to be sure, as I hope every Senator does, that there will be adequate consideration of amendments during the debate on this bill.

The Republicans have the ability to stop a completion of consideration of this bill until--unless and until--there is an opportunity to have a debate on amendments the way we usually do on the authorization bill. That ability to stop the completion of this bill is there, but it can only be utilized if we get to the bill.

To try to figure out in advance all the amendments which might be filed and what amendments will be ordered and what time agreements will be reached is, it seems to me as a practical matter, impossible to do.

The assurance of the majority leader was there and is there. I am not going to repeat it because I have already quoted it twice--but that assurance that other amendments, besides the ones he has talked about publicly, will be in order. Again, I think everybody understands the rules of this place. Nonrelevant amendments can be offered. They have in the past on this bill, including by the Senator from Arizona, who offered a very nonrelevant amendment against the wishes of Senator Warner, an amendment having to do with campaign finance reform not too many years ago. That amendment, although nonrelevant, was passed by this body. I supported that amendment, against the wishes of the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner.

There are dozens of nonrelevant amendments which have been offered on the Defense authorization bill. To suggest somehow or other that only began last year when there was a--or on the last bill--when there was a debate on hate crimes is inaccurate. It was not a debate on the addition of the hate crimes amendment which began the consideration of nonrelevant amendments on the Defense authorization bill. As a matter of fact, it was the fourth time the hate crimes amendment was adopted on the Defense authorization bill. The first time was when Senator Thurmond was chairman of the committee, against his wishes but nonetheless adopted. There are literally dozens of other nonrelevant amendments that have been considered. Why? Because the rules of the Senate permit consideration of nonrelevant amendments on bills.

This is one of the few authorization bills that needs to be passed, not just because it supports the troops, critical not only in wartime but generally, but also because of the rules of this body requiring there be an authorization bill for defense for a number of specific matters, including military construction.

So our hope is we can begin consideration of this bill. I am going to give the reasons why we need to consider this bill in a few moments. But, again, I wish to assure colleagues there is plenty of opportunity to prevent this bill from being adopted if there is not adequate consideration of amendments

that people may want to offer--relevant amendments and, yes, nonrelevant amendments--because the rules of the Senate permit the consideration of nonrelevant amendments. So I hope we can get the votes of 60 Senators this afternoon to begin consideration of this bill.

We have enacted a Defense authorization bill every year for the last 48 years. We have done so because the bill always contains important bipartisan measures to improve the compensation and quality of life of our men and women in uniform, provides our troops the equipment and support they need in ongoing military operations around the world, and enhances the oversight and efficiency of DOD operations. Yesterday afternoon, I described in detail many such measures that are included in this year's bill.

Before I continue, I do have a parliamentary inquiry as to what the time situation is: How many minutes are there available prior to the recess for the caucuses, and what is the division of that time?

So the majority has 36 minutes; is that what I understand?

So I yield myself 10 additional minutes, Mr. President.

This bill includes a handful of contentious provisions which were adopted during the course of the markup. There always are contentious provisions in this bill, and the reason we are here is to debate those provisions. Hopefully, we will have that opportunity.

Some of the provisions in the bill I support, some of the provisions I objected to in committee and I voted against them. But we should not deny the Senate the opportunity to take up a bill which is essential for the men and women in the military because we disagree with some provisions in the bill.

These are legitimate issues for debate, and the Senate should debate them. But the only way we can debate and vote on the issue--the various issues, contentious and otherwise--is if the Senate proceeds to the bill.

It has been argued that we should not proceed to consider this bill for a number of reasons: One, because of the don't ask, don't tell provision in the bill. Another one is because there was a cut in the bill to the money requested by the administration for the Iraqi Security Forces Fund. It has been argued there is ``wasteful'' spending that was added by the Armed Services Committee. Another issue is because of the likelihood that nonrelevant amendments, such as the DREAM Act, will be offered.

First, as to don't ask, don't tell, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs informed our committee in February that they support the President's decision to work with Congress to repeal the existing law. Secretary Gates said:

The question before us is not whether the military prepares

to make this change, but . . . how we best prepare for it.

The committee held two hearings on don't ask, don't tell policy and questioned numerous other witnesses in other hearings about the policy as they came before the committee. The amendment of the policy was debated on and voted on in the Armed Services Committee. It is clearly relevant to the bill because the original policy was adopted as a provision of the fiscal year 1994 Defense Authorization Act after being debated and voted in the committee 15 years ago.

The argument, then, is made that it is inappropriate for us to act on don't ask, don't tell before the Department of Defense has completed its review of the issue. But the provision that is in this bill and the provision we adopted in committee doesn't tie the military to any specific course of action. There will not be any change to the law or to the military's policy before the Department has completed its comprehensive review and considered the comprehensive survey of the force now underway. Even when that review has been completed, under our bill, no change can take place until and unless the President, Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff consider the results of the review, and only if then they can certify to the Senate and the Congress that the change can be implemented in a manner that is consistent with standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention.

That certification, if it is not made, then will result in this policy not changing. Only if the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, obviously in consultation, as the law provides, with the Chiefs of Staff--only then, if the certification is made that our standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention can be maintained, will this law be changed.

The Senate should debate and vote on don't ask, don't tell as we debated the original provision on that issue. As I understand it, by the way, one amendment that has been filed is a motion to strike. But amendments are not limited to that. The majority leader specifically said there may be other amendments relative to don't ask, don't tell that would also be able to be considered. But only if we can get to the bill can we consider those other amendments. We are not going to have the opportunity to debate this issue and vote unless we proceed to the bill.

As to the cut in the money requested for the Iraqi Security Forces Fund, I pointed out yesterday this decision was consistent with the previously expressed view of the Congress and the Armed Services Committee that the Government of Iraq should assume a greater responsibility for the financial burden of building Iraqi security forces as U.S. forces draw down. Iraq, according to a GAO analysis we just received, has a cumulative budget surplus of $52 billion through the end of fiscal year 2009, and as much as $5 billion in unspent security funds. It is well positioned to pay for its own military equipment instead of coming to the American taxpayers for large handouts.

This issue was debated and voted on in the committee. There was an amendment of the Senator from Arizona to strike $1 billion, which we added for our military, and provide the money, under his amendment, to the Iraqi Government instead. What we did is, we had a request for $2 billion. We reduced that to $1 billion. The Senator's amendment was to restore the $1 billion. We defeated that amendment in committee after debate by a vote of 15 to 10.

I know the Senator is disappointed in that outcome, but that is what debates are for. The Senate should debate and vote on the issue, but we are not going to be able to do that unless we proceed to the bill.

As to the ``wasteful'' funding that the Senator from Arizona says was added by the committee, yesterday I gave a detailed accounting of how the committee proposes to spend the money for added force structure, force modernization, and quality of life for our troops. The Senator responded and gave several examples of what he considered to be wasteful spending. Well, let's take a look at some of those. The Senator--by the way, we added $4 billion. We made cuts and we added. We made changes of $4 billion in that budget request for force structure, force modernization, and support of the troops. The wasteful spending list of the Senator yesterday was $28 million out of $4 billion. Apparently, $4 billion was a pretty good spending decision when questions were raised about $28 million.

Let's look at some of the $28 million that is labeled wasteful spending: $3 million because it was for a ``plant-based vaccine development.'' This effort that we are supporting, an additional $4 million, has been identified by the military as the most promising path so far to rapidly produce the millions of vaccine doses that could be needed to respond to a biological threat against our troops on the battlefield. And $8 million was pointed to by the Senator, which is going to a physical fitness center at an Air Force base. That fitness center has been identified by the Air Force as being mission essential.

These are not porkbarrel items added by Senators who just want spending in their States. These items have been identified by the military as being essential items for them. It wasn't in the budget. They could not find the money. We did.

The Senator questioned the proposed spending of $7.6 million for a quiet propulsion load house. I doubt that too

many Members of the Senate know what a quiet propulsion load house is. It is a place where we test our ships to make sure that they meet requirements for avoiding enemy detection. The Navy said it ``requires new ship propulsion technology to be sufficiently tested, evaluated, and certified to ensure that signature performance goals and objectives are met prior to fleet introduction and operational use.''

The Navy says the current equipment does not have the capability to test and evaluate either reduced or full-scale electric propulsion motors with the necessary quiet load machine to approve and certify electric propulsion technology and design. The Navy says it needs the new facility to be operational within the next 5 years.

I believe the 10 minutes I have allocated to myself is up. So I will withhold further comment on the arguments made against the bill.

My main point is the time to debate can only come if we can get to the bill. That is the issue this afternoon, not whether issues are debated--they are and there are plenty of issues to be debated, not as to whether issues will be debated. They will be, and the majority leader has said so. To try to get an agreement in advance on what amendments will be in order before the bill comes up and amendments are filed is a task that cannot be achieved. Only the intention can be stated to allow that to happen. The majority leader has stated that intention and the ways to implement it. There is plenty of leverage to stop the bill from passing if there is inadequate opportunity. We will get to the bill only if 60 Senators decide we should move to its consideration before the recess on the Defense authorization bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is my understanding there will be a modification. There is no objection on this side to the following: that the unanimous consent agreement we previously entered into would be modified so the vote would occur at 2:30, and the time between 2:15 and 2:30 would be equally divided. I ask unanimous consent for that.

Mr. President, we do alternate when there are Members who wish to speak. That would be the appropriate course. So I will yield myself 5 minutes to respond to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. President, I want to quote Admiral Mullen. Admiral Mullen reached a conclusion about the necessity to change this policy. He reached this conclusion, I hope and believe, without any regard to an election coming up. Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in front of our committee back in February said the following:

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 this issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the

fact that we have in place a policy that forces men and women

to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow

citizens. To me personally, it comes down to integrity,

theirs as individuals and ours as an institution.

To suggest that Admiral Mullen somehow or another reached his conclusion because there is an election coming up it seems to me would be totally inappropriate, and I hope no one is making that suggestion. He reached a conclusion about gays and lesbians serving in the military. He stated his conclusion. Election driven, insulting? Of course not. He reached a conclusion--so did Secretary Gates--reached a conclusion that this policy must change. Because an election is coming up, Secretary Gates, a Republican, decides this policy must change because there is an election coming up? Of course not. It is because they reached a conclusion that the policy needs to change, and the study they got underway is to determine how to implement that change.

What do we do in our bill? What we say in our bill is very explicitly there is not going to be a change in policy unless and until there is a certification from the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the President of the United States that the changes in policy, which they are going to presumably provide, will not undermine the morale, the recruiting, the retention of troops in the United States.

Our bill that is in front of us specifically says there will be no change in policy unless and until that certification comes. We want to hear from the troops also--the way the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff wants to hear from the troops, the way the Secretary of Defense wants to hear from the troops--as to how to implement a change in policy. And we go beyond that. We say there will not be a change in policy unless and until there is a certification from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs that there will be no negative impact on morale, retention, and recruitment. That, it seems to me, is a totally appropriate way to legislate. That does pay respect to the men and women of the Armed Forces.

Unless the opponents of this language suggest that Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and Secretary Gates, who have reached a conclusion that this policy must change, unless they are suggesting that their conclusion is driven by elections, it seems to me it is wrong to suggest the fight legislatively is election driven.

Was the decision to implement this policy 15 years ago election driven? No, it was based on a decision at that time that don't ask, don't tell was the right policy. I did not think it was. I voted against it. But the decision was made.

To argue now that it is all about elections misunderstands the importance of this issue, the significance of this issue, and what the people of this country have come to understand, which is the service by gays and lesbians is just as valued as the service by others. Giving their lives up for the country, being buried in Arlington Cemetery, as gays and lesbians are, who have had the uniform of this country on, is the ultimate sacrifice citizens can make for this country. Gays and lesbians have made this sacrifice, and nongays and lesbians, obviously, have made this sacrifice too.

One other point. Is my time up?

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Brown for his service on the committee. He has been invaluable to the committee, and I very much appreciate that.

The Senator's statement that he favors an open process is one that I share. That is why I talked to the majority leader, and the majority leader made a statement last Thursday which I hope the Senator from Massachusetts would look at relative to the process. The majority leader has talked about a number of amendments which he would like to see offered and would intend to offer. That is his right, as it is the right of any Senator.

Last year, we adopted the hate crimes bill, which was a nonrelevant amendment. There was some objection to it. Many years ago, when the Senator from Arizona offered a campaign finance amendment to the Defense authorization bill--totally nonrelevant--Senator Warner, sitting right over here, very much objected to it. He said it would sink the bill. It did not sink the bill, by the way; it was passed by the Senate--nonrelevant. And we have adopted other nonrelevant amendments on this bill and other bills because the rules of the Senate allow for nonrelevant amendments.

As to whether this process is going to be open to other amendments, I assure the Senator from Massachusetts it will be, and I will make sure I do everything in my power to see that happens. That is why the majority leader, last Thursday, assured the Senate--and these were his words:

In addition to issues that I have talked about in the last

couple of days, there are many other important matters that

both sides of the aisle wish to address. I am willing to work

with Republicans on a process that will permit the Senate to

consider these matters and complete the bill as soon as

possible.

So Senator Reid was giving the assurance that other amendments besides the three he has identified publicly are going to be in order. He is not going to try to cut off debate.

As chairman of this committee, I have, for 30 years now, fought to make sure this bill was open to amendments, and I will continue to do that. Last year, I think there were something like 60 amendments. So there is not going to be an effort to cut off debate on amendments which Members of the Senate want to offer that is different from any other time when this process is used.

We have to manage a bill. We have to get a bill passed. After there is debate on a bill, there comes a time when the majority leader says to the managers: We have to get a bill passed. You have to find some way we can get a bill passed. Then we enter into, hopefully, unanimous consent agreements, where we work out how many amendments are left on each side. That is what our intention is to do here, too--to work out these kinds of agreements as this matter unfolds.

But the issue now is whether we are going to get to debate the bill, whether we can get to the point where we can offer amendments and reach agreements on what amendments are left that would be in order and on time agreements. We can't get to that point unless we are allowed to proceed to the bill.

As far as I am concerned, it is totally inaccurate to say the men and women in uniform are being in some way not respected by proceeding to this bill. If we cannot debate this bill this year, if we cannot offer a motion to change don't ask, don't tell language, strike the language, whatever, then we are not taking up the bill which is so critical to the men and women in uniform. This bill is critical to them.

If there are Members here who want to strike or modify don't ask, don't tell, the time to do it is when we get to the bill. We cannot do it now. We cannot amend this bill now unless we get to the bill. There is no point, it seems to me, in talking about the need to amend the bill--which I happen to agree is in order--unless we get to the bill. It becomes a theoretical statement that something will or will not happen, unless we can get to the bill.

I do not know of a time when there has been a filibuster against getting to the Defense authorization bill. No matter how contentious issues have been, and they have been contentious over the years, the idea that there is a filibuster against proceeding to the bill so we cannot debate the kinds of issues which need to be debated, it seems to me, is what denies the men and women in uniform the opportunity to get a bill passed that is so important to them.

We need to get to this bill. We need to make progress on this bill. I believe, as the majority leader has said,--I believe what he said--that this is not going to be the kind of closed process which some have suggested and imputed to him.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will yield myself 30 seconds.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has reached a conclusion, the Secretary of Defense has reached a conclusion--that this policy should be changed. It should be. We ought to debate it. Whether to change this policy, how it is changed--how it is implemented is what they set in motion, a

study to help them decide. That is the process they agreed to.

Have they offended or insulted the men and women of the Armed Forces by concluding that this policy should change? Has the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, somehow, in some way, not taken into consideration the well-being of the men and women of the Armed Forces when he concluded this policy should change? Has Secretary Gates been guided by elections coming up when he concluded that this policy should change and that the study that is underway should be taken in order to determine how to implement that change?

I don't consider that they have offended or insulted the men and women they command. This language surely protects exactly what Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen have put into motion--a study as to how to implement a change in policy. That is what this study is all about. That is what we require be completed prior to any change in the policy.

We have gone a step beyond--a step beyond--requiring that they certify--obviously, after consultations with the Chiefs of Staff; that is required by law--that they certify that there will not be a negative impact on morale, recruitment, or retention.

Mr. President, how much time is on this side?

I ask unanimous consent that a letter from GEN John Shalikashvili, the retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, be printed in the Record.

Let me read just part of this letter.

I am writing to urge the Senate to vote in support of the

2001 national Defense Authorization Act. Each element

contained in the legislation that passed the Senate Armed

Services Committee is essential to the maintenance of a

strong, capable fighting force for our nation. Provisions in

the bill will ensure that our soldiers have the pay they

deserve and the equipment training and support they need to

conduct their critical missions. In particular, I support the

don't ask, don't tell repeal language that passed through the

Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this year and is

currently part of the pending legislation.

He goes on:

The pentagon is currently conducting a study in how to

implement a policy of open service. Congressional repeal is

vital for the Pentagon to implement their findings, whatever

they may be. As I have said before, repeal strikes down the

law that straightjackets military leaders' ability to craft a

sensible and practical policy about open service. Most

importantly, the current repeal language allows the Pentagon

the time it may need to answer any questions about how to

actually implement the change.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if what the Senator from Florida said is going to occur, it indeed would be a broken system. But the majority leader has said and said publicly that there are many other important matters that both sides of the aisle wish to address other than the ones he has raised himself, and he is willing to work with Republicans on a process to permit the Senate to consider these matters and complete the bill as soon as possible.

I do not know exactly what the Senators are saying when they say this is a closed process, when the majority leader says, no, it is not. I mean, they want to debate amendments. You cannot debate amendments unless you get to the bill and offer amendments. I wish to debate amendments too. There are provisions in this bill that I do not like that I voted against in committee as chairman.

There are a number of provisions I would like to see stricken in this bill. But you cannot strike a provision or try to strike a provision before the bill is on the floor to debate. The issue here is whether this filibuster against bringing this bill to the floor so we can debate the amendments is going to succeed.

That is the issue today. Should we be able to debate amendments? You bet. I fought for that as long as I have been either chairman, ranking member or member of the Armed Services Committee and other committees. Of course, we ought to be able to debate amendments.

But the debate today is whether we can get to the point where we can debate amendments. People want to strike the language on don't ask, don't tell. The only way we can get to that point, to strike or modify that language, is if the filibuster does not succeed this afternoon; otherwise we cannot get to that point.

We are debating now whether we can bring a bill to the floor so we can do exactly what the Senator from Florida wants us to do, be able to offer amendments, be able to strike language, modify language, add language.

As to whether nonrelevant amendments should be added, if we want to change the rules of this Senate, offer an amendment to the rules. But the rules of this Senate allow nonrelevant amendments to be offered, and dozens have been offered on Defense authorization bills, including by the Senator from Arizona, who about a decade ago offered a very contentious amendment to change the campaign laws on terms of disclosure.

The Senator, who was chairman of the Armed Services Committee, John Warner, argued passionately to the Senator from Arizona: Please, do not offer that to this bill. It could sink this bill. That was the argument of the chairman. The Senator from Arizona went ahead anyway, as was his right. By the way, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee acknowledged it was the right of the Senator from Arizona to offer nonrelevant amendments, and the Senator did that, the Senator from Arizona. It was not the first time.

Senators on both sides of the aisle have offered nonrelevant amendments to the Defense authorization bill and to other bills because that is their right. What is broken around here is the determination on the part of the Republicans to not allow us to proceed to debate bills. That is what is broken, in that the filibusters are now being used over and over and over in a way that they have never been used before, at least in this quantity, to stop a bill from coming to the floor.

How do we debate the amendments which the Senator from Florida rightfully says we should debate unless we can get to the point where we can debate them. We cannot debate them now. The bill is not before us. The question this afternoon is whether we are going to allow this bill to come before us so the Senate can do exactly what the Senate should do, which is to have Senators be able to offer amendments, debate those amendments, accept or defeat those amendments. That is what the Senate should be doing.

But we cannot do that if a filibuster denying the Senate an opportunity to debate the bill succeeds. Then we cannot do that. We cannot do what the Senator from Florida wants us to do, and I want us to do, to debate amendments, to have Senators be able to offer amendments. That is the problem which we face more and more in this body, and I deeply regret it.

I do not know how to change this system without changing the rules, which we are not going to be able to do. I do not know how we can prevent a filibuster succeeding or delaying the Senate from acting for days and days and days, from being able to debate. Filibusters have their place, I believe, to protect the minority. They have their place so that the minority can be assured of extended debate. I have supported that.

But the filibusters are being used now more and more to prevent us from debating, not to guarantee the opportunity to debate for the minority,

which is a legitimate function of the filibuster, but to prevent us from debating. This filibuster, if it succeeds this afternoon, is going to prevent us from debating the very issues which need to be debated. Don't ask, don't tell, we should debate it. We cannot debate it if we do not get to the bill. The DREAM Act, should that be offered, should it not be offered? We cannot debate that unless we get to the bill.

As to the other provisions in this bill, one of the Senators mentioned the language about abortions. By the way, he said taxpayer- paid abortions, which is not in the bill, as I think the Senator from Florida knows. It only allows abortions on a voluntary basis, which are legal, if the woman pays for the abortion. These are not taxpayer-paid abortions. So putting that aside, it is a legitimate subject for debate. How do you debate it if we cannot get to the bill?

That is what this issue is about this afternoon. Will we get to a bill, which I think all of us believe is a critically important bill to the men and women of the Armed Forces? How do we get to that bill? How do we debate these issues, which I agree with the Senator from Florida need to be debated, rightfully are debated, if we are not able to get to the bill? That is the issue which we will decide this afternoon.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Are we on the bill now?

If cloture passes this afternoon, would we then be able to be on the bill?

Mr. President, I yield the remainder of the time to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. President, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to Senator Reed.

Mr. President, I will yield myself just a minute and a half. I would ask that the Republicans have their speaker--if they are going to be using their time--to come immediately after me; otherwise, it would not be fair for us to be using up all of our time in advance.

Mr. President, this morning a number of Republican Senators stated they would support the current filibuster of this bill because they were afraid that if we take up the bill, we are going to have a closed process that would limit their ability to offer amendments. The majority leader has addressed this issue. He specifically said last Thursday that he is ``willing to work with Republicans on a process that will permit the Senate to consider these matters and complete the bill as soon as possible.'' He is very clear on this. He is not trying to prevent other amendments from being offered. However, there are not going to be any amendments, there is not going to be any opportunity to vote on any amendments unless we get 60 votes to overcome the current filibuster and proceed to the bill. It makes no sense for Senators to

block all amendments, which is what the effect will be if we do not end this filibuster, to deny consideration of this bill so we can consider amendments. It makes no sense to do that under the guise of wanting an open amendment process. We are not going to have any amendments unless we can get to this bill, unless we end this filibuster.

Amendments are appropriate. We have always had amendments on the Defense bill. The majority leader assures we are going to do that again, and I will do everything I can as chairman to make sure that is true. So the issue today is not whether there is going to be specific amendments in order; it is whether we are going to get to the bill so we can try to consider amendments to the Defense authorization bill. There are many amendments that should be considered, and I hope we do not continue this filibuster. I hope we can get 60 votes and do the important work of the Nation, which is to get a defense authorization bill passed after it has been considered.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, how much time do I have?

I yield the time to the Senator from Connecticut.

Madam President, I know the Senator from Hawaii has to leave, but before he goes I just wish every American could have heard from a hero not of this body, of this Nation but of the world. Senator Inouye did more than swim against the tide in order to put on the uniform of his country. He had to fight his way into the Army. He then became a Medal of Honor winner. The highest honor--the Medal of Valor-- that can be granted was awarded to Senator Inouye. He gave up more than just a few years of his life; he gave up part of his body for this country.

His eloquence and his passion for proper treatment of people who want to put on the uniform of this Nation is extraordinarily powerful. I only wish every American could have heard it. I thank him for that service and for that statement.

I also want to add a thank-you to the Senator from Illinois. I want to reinforce something he said by asking him a question. It had to do with that unanimous consent request to which he referred. The way this request was worded, even if--well, let me back up.

We have heard for 2 days objections from Republicans that there would be nonrelevant amendments that would be offered--which, of course, is permitted under our rules. As a matter of fact, the Senator from Arizona has on a number of occasions on this bill offered nonrelevant amendments. But even if that DREAM Act amendment of yours were modified so that it only related to young men and women who wanted to go into the Army to serve their country and the educational part of it, as important as it is, if that were left out--even if the amendment were designed so that it could be referred to the Armed Services Committee because it would be defense related, even if you could design an amendment like that, under this unanimous consent agreement no amendment related to immigration would be in order during those first amendments.

Is that not singling out immigration, saying, despite all of the protestations we heard here about wanting to make sure amendments were relevant--despite the history that is not required under the rule but that is the protestations we heard over the last few days, we want relevant amendments and the DREAM Act isn't relevant--under this unanimous consent request, even if the DREAM Act were modified so it might be within the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee because it would be focused on service in the Armed Forces, under this request no amendment relating to immigration would be in order; is that correct?

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

Mr. President, ever since an act of horrific violence on a bright blue morning 9 years ago, our Nation has been at war. At home and abroad, this war has tested our Nation, tested our military strength and our diplomatic skill, tested our resilience and our courage. Over the last few months, I fear our Nation has been in danger of failing one of these tests, a failure that would threaten our safety and the freedoms we hold so dear.

At issue is a plan to build an Islamic community center a few blocks away from the site of the attack on the World Trade Center and the larger question of whether our Nation will embrace diversity or choose a path of division. This is not just a question of doing the right thing, although it is that. It is not just a question of preserving the values that have made our Nation a beacon of freedom across the globe, although it is certainly that too. This is also a question of whether we will make our Nation safer by focusing on and extinguishing the flames of hatred that spawned the 9/11 attacks or, on the other hand, add fuel to the fire that threatens us.

There should be little doubt that religious intolerance has no place in a nation built on the idea, as Thomas Jefferson once wrote, ``that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions.'' Our history is filled with moments in which we struggle to live up to that notion, in which Roman Catholics or Mormons or Jews or others found themselves beset by religious intolerance and wondering if the ideals set forth by our Founding Fathers would hold.

So it is in this case. American Muslims have built homes, raised families, and run successful businesses in communities across our country. They have been drawn here because of the belief, as one prominent member of Michigan's Arab-American community recently wrote, ``that there is room in America for all cultural and religious backgrounds.''

Well, that is the America in which they chose to build their lives. It is the America we aspire to be, that we claim to be. We should ask ourselves, if we would not object to a church or synagogue at that location in Manhattan, how can we object to a Muslim place of worship and remain true to our most fundamental principles?

Upholding the promise of our founding values should be reason enough to resist anti-Muslim sentiment. But there are equally powerful reasons that rely not on values but on simple common sense. The war that began on September 11, 2001, is not only a war against terrorists but a war to isolate those terrorists from broader Muslim society. We have seen time and time again that when we stray from our values, it is not just a moral failure but a national security failure. Our troops work every day to keep weapons out of the hands of al-Qaida and its terrorists. Yet, by indulging in intolerance, we hand al-Qaida a powerful propaganda weapon, one to use to stoke hatred of us and to recruit the terrorists who threaten our troops abroad and our citizens at home. We have already seen in the violent and even deadly protests in Afghanistan how anger can spawn anger and hatred and can inspire hatred.

By threatening to burn holy texts or by holding an entire faith as somehow responsible for the actions of its most fanatic members, Osama bin Laden and his kind are given precisely the kind of clash of civilizations they so desperately seek to create.

I was heartened by the words of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who said:

We would be untrue to the best part of ourselves--and who

we are as New Yorkers and Americans--if we said ``no'' to a

mosque in Lower Manhattan.

I am also encouraged by the religious leaders of many faiths across our country who have stood up and said:

We support the rights of all Americans to worship in their

chosen place, through a climate of respect, dignity and

peace.

I am encouraged by the words of our commander in Afghanistan, GEN David Petraeus, who powerfully pointed out that the acts of religious intolerance are ``precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses'' to direct hatred at our brave troops.

I am encouraged by the words of our President:

This is America and our commitment to religious freedom

must be unshakeable.

I am heartened, too, by the reaction in my home State, which is home to a large, thriving, and valued community of Muslim Americans. The Grand Rapids Press has editorialized that ``[a] Manhattan mosque would be a powerful statement that the terrorists did not--and cannot--win.'' A columnist in the Detroit News wrote:

Ground zero would seem to be the perfect place to

demonstrate that religious tolerance is why so many flocked

to our shores in the first place, and remains a key block in

the foundation of our freedom.

A Detroit Free Press editorial reads:

It's not just about this being a mosque, but about the

religious freedom that we all hold dear, and that was such a

critical part of this country's founding.

Michigan civil and religious leaders of many faiths and backgrounds have invoked our most closely held beliefs and called on the Nation to speak and act in harmony with those beliefs. The power of those beliefs represents a powerful tool against the hatred that inspired 9/11.

The founding principles of our Nation call on us to stand with voices of tolerance and reason. Those who have given their all in the defense of those principles would surely hope that we would resist the calls to hatred and violence. Our moral authority depends on that. Preservation of the freedom that defines us depends on that. Our safety depends on that. I commend those who have spoken for tolerance and diversity, who have resisted anger and intolerance, and who in doing so have upheld our most important values and have made our Nation safer.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 21, 2010, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 21, 2010, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Investing in Infrastructure: Creating Jobs and Growing the Economy.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 21, 2010, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Welfare Reform: A New Conversation on Women and Poverty.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 21, 2010, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 21, 2010, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 21, 2010, at 9 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 21, 2010, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, today in the Senate, there will be a period of morning business until 3 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 3454, the Department of Defense authorization bill.

As previously announced by the majority leader, there will be no rollcall votes during today's session of the Senate. The next vote will occur at 2:15 p.m. tomorrow, Tuesday, September 21. That vote will be on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the DOD authorization bill.

Mr. President, I understand that S. 3793 is at the desk and due for a second reading.

Mr. President, I object to any further proceedings with respect to the bill.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we have enacted a National Defense Authorization Act every year for the last 48 years, and we need to do the same this year. I hope we can at least make some progress during the next few days and weeks on this bill.

This year's bill would continue 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 would extend over 30 types of bonuses and special pays aimed at encouraging enlistment, reenlistment, and continued service by Active-Duty and Reserve military personnel.

The bill would authorize continued TRICARE coverage for eligible dependents of servicemembers up to age 26.

The bill would improve care for our wounded warriors by addressing inequities in rules for involuntary administrative separations based on medical conditions and requiring new education and training programs on the use of pharmaceuticals for patients in wounded warrior units.

The bill would authorize and allow the waiver of maximum age limitations to enable certain highly qualified enlisted members who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom to enter the military service academies.

The bill also includes important funding and authorities needed to provide our troops the equipment and support they will continue to need as long as they remain on the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For example, the bill would enhance the military's ability to rapidly acquire and field new capabilities in response to urgent needs on the battlefield by expanding the authority of the Department of Defense to waive statutory requirements when urgently needed to save lives on the battlefield.

The bill would fully fund the President's request to train and equip the Afghan National Army and Afghan Police--growing the capabilities of these security forces to prepare them to take over increased responsibility for Afghanistan's security.

The bill would extend for another year the authority for the Secretary of Defense to transfer equipment coming out of Iraq as our troops withdraw to the security forces of Iraq and Afghanistan, providing through that transfer an important tool for our commanders looking to accelerate the growth of these security forces.

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 would require the Department of Defense to establish a comprehensive process for evaluating and addressing urgent operational needs identified on the battlefield.

The bill would address shortcomings in the management of private security contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan by making contractors expressly responsible for the conduct of their subcontractors and establishing specific contractual remedies for failures to comply with the requirements and directives.

The bill would require the Department of Defense to establish acquisition baselines for the Missile Defense Agency's programs and provide annual reports to Congress on progress toward achieving those baselines.

The bill also includes important legislative provisions that would promote DOD's cybersecurity and energy security efforts--two important initiatives that would help strengthen our national defense and our Nation.

This bill does include a handful of contentious provisions on which there is disagreement in the Senate. These provisions were debated in committee. I expect them to be debated again on the Senate floor, if we can proceed tomorrow, as I hope we can. We are going to have votes on a number of those issues and other contentious issues, and the Senate will work its will if we are allowed to get to the point where we can debate this bill.

One of the issues which has been raised is whether amendments should be offered or are offerable to this bill, such as the DREAM Act, which are not

relevant to the bill. The Senator from Arizona recently said the following, and he has repeated it:

[F]or many, many years, we never put any extraneous items

on the [DOD authorization] bill, because it was so important

to defense and we just didn't allow it.

He continued:

Starting last year, Carl Levin and Harry Reid put hate

crimes on it.

The Senator from Arizona is incorrect. He is incorrect on a number of accounts. First of all, the Senate previously considered hate crimes amendments to the national defense authorization bill. We did it in 2001. We did it in 2005. We did it again in 2008 on the national defense authorization bill. It was not the first time that hate crimes was added to the defense authorization bill, and each time the hate crimes amendment was approved by overwhelming bipartisan votes: 57 to 42, 65 to 33, and 60 to 39. It received anywhere from 8 to 18 Republican votes. The only thing that was new about last year's action relative to hate crimes was that for the first time the provision was not dropped in conference. It was included in the enacted legislation.

Secondly, the Senator from Arizona is incorrect when he says ``we never put any extraneous items on the [defense authorization] bill . . . we just didn't allow it'' is incorrect for another reason. During our consideration of Defense Authorization Acts over the last dozen years, and before, the Senate has debated other amendments, nonrelevant amendments, on many issues, including on concealed weapons, indecency standards, the extension of pay-go budget procedures, and secret holds on nominations, among other issues.

As a matter of fact, in the year 2000, the Senator from Arizona offered a nonrelevant amendment to the defense authorization bill. His amendment proposed to require campaign finance disclosure by the so- called 527 organizations as an amendment to national defense authorization. Senator Warner opposed it, as floor manager of the bill. Senator Warner, as chairman and floor manager, argued it was not relevant to the bill. Indeed, Senator Warner argued it could endanger the passage of the bill and urged Senator McCain not to offer that nonrelevant amendment. Senator McCain's response:

I yield to no one in this body as to my advocacy for our

Nation's defense and the men and women in the military.

He continued:

But if we want to give these men and women in the military

confidence in their Government, we should have fully

disclosed who it is that contributes to the political

campaigns.

When Senator Warner was asked if he was upset with Senator McCain for tying up the Senate with nonrelevant amendments on the defense authorization bill, Senator Warner stated:

I don't get upset at anything. The man--

The Senator he is referring to, Senator McCain--

is acting under the rules.

I supported the McCain amendment at that time, and I also supported the right of the Senator from Arizona to offer it, not because it was relevant to the defense authorization bill--it was not--but because it was the only opportunity, apparently, to consider that bill, and it was the right thing to do, in my judgment.

By a vote of 57 to 42, the Senate agreed, and the nonrelevant McCain amendment was adopted to the defense authorization bill. By the way, by comparison, last year's hate crimes amendment was adopted by a vote of 63 to 28.

Particular concern has also been expressed about the committee's decision to cut $1 billion of the $2 billion that the President requested for the Iraq Security Forces Fund. This decision of the committee was consistent with the previously expressed view of the Armed Services Committee and of the Congress that the Government of Iraq should assume a greater responsibility for the financial burden of building Iraqi security forces as U.S. forces draw down.

The Iraqis are in a better position to pay for their defense than we are. Last year, we provided only $1 billion. We should not be increasing that amount as Iraqi resources and finances get stronger and their oil revenues get higher.

The American taxpayers have already paid over $18 billion to build the capacity of the Iraqi Army and police. By contrast, the Government of Iraq has failed to adequately invest in its own security forces. According to a recent DOD report, the Iraqi Ministry of Defense requested $7.4 billion in 2010, but the Ministry of Finance approved only $4.9 billion, choosing to fund little more than personnel costs and to rely almost entirely on the United States to pay for even the most basic equipment needed by the Iraqi Army. Iraq, which according to GAO analysis, has a cumulative budget surplus of $52 billion through the end of fiscal year 2009 and as much as $5 billion in unspent security funds, should be well positioned to pay for its own military equipment instead of coming to us for large handouts.

The argument has been made that the money the committee cut from the Iraqi Security Forces Fund was used to pay for porkbarrel projects. However, the definition of ``porkbarrel projects'' used for this purpose appears to be anything other than what the administration requests. I question why spending money on Iraqi troops should be considered good government, but if we spend the same amount of money on our own military instead, it is considered wasteful porkbarrel spending. We could have no higher priority as a committee or as a Congress than supporting our own defense, and I am proud of the fact that our bill would increase the money available for this purpose by cutting back on subsidies for the Iraqis.

Here is the process we use in our committee. This is how we accomplish where we are today. Every year, our committee staff works hard to identify excess or unneeded spending in the Defense budget request. For example, we identify unsuccessful programs where we appear to be sending good money after bad, programs that are getting money before they need it or are getting more money than they can reasonably spend in a year; programs that cannot spend all the money they have because of schedule delays, and programs that are scheduled to receive funding increases, even though the requirement is declining. We would not be doing our job for the Congress and the American people if we fail to undertake a thorough review and to cut excess or unneeded spending from the budget. When we find unneeded spending, we are then able to shift it to support added force structure or force modernization and the quality of life for our troops. This is much the same process that the Secretary of Defense goes through to identify excess overhead, duplicative programs and other wasteful spending and shift the funds to higher priority defense needs.

This year, we reviewed the Department's $725 billion budget proposal and identified several billion dollars of unneeded spending--just over one-half of 1 percent of the total budget. What did we spend the money on? Mainly modernizing weapons systems, supporting readiness, and supporting the troops. More specifically, this is what the committee proposes to spend the money on that was cut as unneeded from other programs.

This is a relatively long list, but I do wish to give a fairly extensive list of what the additional spending was by the Armed Services Committee when we found that some of the spending in the budget was unneeded for the reasons I just gave.

Here is a list: $532 million to fully fund high-priority requirements identified by the Chief of Naval Operations for ship depot maintenance, aircraft depot maintenance, and spare parts; $363 million to improve missile defense capabilities against existing regional missile threats and provide better protection against such missiles for our deployed forces and our allies; $337 million to fully fund high priority weapons sustainment and depot maintenance requirements identified by the Air Force Chief of Staff; $325 million to procure additional F-18 aircraft to address a looming shortfall of strike fighter aircraft and take advantage of better prices we will get through a multiyear contract; $310 million for new facilities, all of which meet the McCain-Glenn screening requirements for military construction and have been determined by the military to be mission essential, to support operations and training, and ensure that our troops are ready for deployment; $244 million to augment the capability of our communications satellites, continue the

development of infrared sensors for next-generation satellites, and provide for improved space protection and space situational awareness; $213 million for advanced technologies, for advanced weapons systems, including basic and applied research and materials, science for lighter and stronger materials, new sensors, lasers, and information technology; $184 million for unfunded procurement priorities identified by the Army Chief of Staff to meet force protection, mobility, communication, and other needs for deployed forces in Afghanistan, including the Line of Communication Bridge, the Lightweight Counter- Mortar Radar, the Defense Advanced Global Positioning System Receiver, the Tactical Local Area Network, and the Forward Entry Device for the artillery tactical data system; $170 million for the Department's Energy Conservation Improvement Program to competitively fund meritorious programs that have a savings-to-investment ratio of 1.25 or higher and a simple payback period of 10 years or less; $113 million for unfunded requirements identified by the Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command for ground mobility vehicles, deployable communications equipment, thermal and night vision goggles, and nonlethal weapons technologies; $102 million to continue the JSTARS reengining program to ensure that these aircraft have the onstation capability needed to provide real-time intelligence to our ground forces engaged in combat; $100 million to enhance the safety and reliability of our nuclear weapons by providing funding needed for facility design, maintenance, and upgrades, provide diagnostic equipment, and address operational safety issues; $100 million for new quality-of-life facilities such as dormitories, emergency service centers, and health clinics, all of which have been determined by the military to be mission essential; $88 million for research and development to reduce the Department's dependency on fossil fuels through improved energy storage, power systems, renewable energy production, and energy efficiency in Defense programs; $78 million for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance activities and programs that are delivering critical capabilities for our troops in Afghanistan; $78 million to meet antiterrorism and force protection requirements at military bases; $76 million to improve the combat capability of Navy submarines; $72 million for improved medical care for our troops and their families, including $22 million for continuity of medical care and to prevent increases in fees and $50 million for critical medical research on trauma care, blast injuries, visual impairment, and other battlefield-related injuries; $71 million to improve the Navy's ability to operate with unmanned systems, improve countermeasures and improve the ability of DOD air and sea systems to handle threats from enemy missiles and shoulder-fired weapons and make operational system improvements on Navy ships; $70 million to modernize Navy facilities and improve their capability to support current operations and new technology developments; $59 million for upgrades for Army weapons systems to enhance operational capabilities and modernize the force; $58 million for cyber-security technology development and demonstrations to enhance protections available for critical DOD infrastructure and information; $57 million for advanced manufacturing technologies to reduce the time required to produce high- demand items such as body and vehicle armor, IED jammers and MRAP vehicles and to modernize the Department of Defense test capabilities facilities to ensure that new weapons systems meet warfighter requirements; $56 million for communications facilities and special operations facilities, all of which have been determined by the military to be mission essential; $46 million for nonproliferation programs, including the screening of cargo containers coming into the United States, plutonium disposition, and related research and development; $45 million for Impact Aid to ensure a quality education for military dependents by compensating local school districts that lose property tax revenue due to the presence of tax-exempt military installations; $35 million for the National Guard to assist State and local law enforcement with counternarcotics operations; $34 million for the Department of Defense inspector general to continue growth designed to provide more effective oversight and help identify waste, fraud, and abuse in Department of Defense programs; $30 million to reduce technical risk and increase program performance in the Army's Paladin self-propelled howitzer integrated management program; $26 million for simulators and trainers for the Army to reduce training costs and increase the preparedness of our troops for the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan; and $25 million to fund a competitive program to protect critical mission training sites by preventing or reducing encroachment through the creation of compatible-use buffer zones.

These are real military needs. These are not ``bridges to nowhere''-- quite the opposite. This year, we took $75 million that the Department of Defense planned to spend on military museums and spent it instead on more immediate military needs consistent with our committee policy that military museums should be funded through private donations rather than taxpayer funds.

I am not going to tell the Presiding Officer or anybody else that every judgment the committee made was correct. There is no way I could agree to that. In fact, some of the decisions we made I didn't agree with, but I can say the money that was added was added for what we saw as needed measures to modernize our forces and provide for our troops. Others may disagree. Some may honestly believe that any spending not included in the administration budget, no matter how important it may be to the military, is wasteful. However, we will not be able to have that debate and vote on any amendments to the funding proposed by the committee unless we vote tomorrow to proceed to consideration of this bill.

We currently have 50,000 U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines on the ground in Iraq and roughly twice as many in Afghanistan. While there are some issues on which we may disagree, I think we all know we must provide our troops the support they need as long as they remain in harm's way. Senate action on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 will improve the quality of life of our men and women in uniform. It will give them the tools they need to remain the most effective fighting force in the world. Most important of all, it will send an important message that we as a nation stand behind them and appreciate their service.

I hope our colleagues will allow us to proceed to consideration of this bill. There obviously will be many amendments offered, some to change or strike the language which is in the bill. That is understandable. There will be some amendments aimed at adding provisions to the bill, and that is not unusual either. As I said, both relevant and nonrelevant amendments have been debated to this bill in the past. It is not unusual. It complicates, obviously, the life of the manager, but that is what we are here for, to consider amendments--both relevant and nonrelevant amendments--to the bill and to try to get a Defense bill passed.

I hope we can make progress on this bill this week. As somebody who may be overly optimistic, I would love to see this bill passed prior to our next recess. But our goal should be to make progress on this bill, and in order to do that, we will need to adopt cloture tomorrow. I hope the Senate does that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I am going to briefly comment on a number of points the Senator from Arizona made. First, he read a list of items that he thought were wasteful items that we added to the bill. I went through a long list of the items we added to the bill, probably three pages of types of items that we added in the Armed Services Committee that support the troops, their readiness, their capabilities, their benefits.

He suggested--in fact, stated that these spending items were put in the bill without debate, discussion, or amendment. I first want to comment on that because, as the Presiding Officer knows as a very valued and esteemed member of our committee, we spent days on markup. I think we have at least 60 amendments--at least that is my recollection.

Every proposed funding item in this bill and every item of the bill and report language was shared with the minority staff at least a full week before the beginning of the markup. This is, by the way, about twice as much time as was provided by any other committee chairman I can remember in the 30-plus years I have been here in order to give the minority staff an opportunity to look at what the proposed markup documents were.

We then provided the minority staff with several days to suggest changes to the proposed language. A number of significant changes, as a matter of fact, were made on the basis of those discussions and recommendations from the minority staff.

After the changes were made, then the full package was provided to all the members of the committee and their staffs. Again, several days earlier than this had been done in any previous year. So every item the Senator from Arizona mentioned, like every other spending item in the bill, was subject to amendment in committee. I believe it was 2 days of committee deliberations. Again, dozens and dozens of amendments were adopted, some defeated. But a large number of amendments were dealt with.

The opportunity was more than I think has historically been the case for the minority staff, and obviously the majority staff as well, to make recommendations for changes prior to the markup document being presented to members for amendment, and many of those changes were made.

Now, just a couple of examples that the Senator from Arizona used as being evidence of wasteful spending that we added. One was $3 million for plant-based vaccine development. The background for that $3 million we added is

the Department of Defense has been working to develop rapid processes for manufacturing vaccines for a variety of biological threat agents in order to safeguard our troops in the battlefield.

The most promising path so far to a speedy response for new vaccines is the use of plants to produce millions of vaccine doses in a matter of weeks at a very low cost, as compared to the 6-plus months for standard production processes that cost many times as much.

So that funding is very valuable funding. I do not think most objective observers would consider that to be pork. It will help meet military needs by continuing the progress toward rapid, tailored vaccine production for new diseases for biological threats.

Another one which was mentioned by my friend from Arizona was the money we added for a physical fitness center at the Malmstrom Air Force Base. Now, fitness is a military requirement. According to the Air Force, the existing fitness center at Malmstrom Air Force Base, which was built in 1957, so that is now over 50 years ago, ``does not adequately satisfy personnel or infrastructure demands.'' The Air Force said in the absence of a new fitness center, ``there will continue to be very few options to maintain physical fitness during the winter months.'' The project meets the criteria established for military construction projects more than a decade ago by Senators Glenn and McCain.

Those are just a couple of the items Senator McCain mentioned. Another point the Senator from Arizona made is that the language relative to don't ask, don't tell does not give the Department of Defense the opportunity to consider the impact of the change on morale and readiness, recruiting and retention of our troops. Here is what the language of our bill does. We were very careful in order to be sure there would be a certification that there would be no negative impact in terms of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention.

We changed the language in the bill so it was not a direct repeal of don't ask, don't tell, but rather that that policy is going to stay in effect explicitly. This is in subsection C, that don't ask, don't tell shall remain in effect until such time that all of the requirements and certifications by subsection B are met. If these requirements and certifications are not met, section 654 of title 10--that is the don't ask, don't tell policy--shall remain in effect.

One of the certifications that is required before there is a change in policy says:

The implementation of necessary policies and regulations

pursuant to the discretion provided by the amendments made by

subsection F--

Here is the key language--

is consistent with the standards of military readiness,

military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and

retention of the Armed Forces.

This policy will stay in effect unless and until there is, No. 1, a report--which is underway now--which the Secretary of Defense is going to provide to the Congress relative to the impact of the change in policy. But, secondly, the policy will stay in effect until the President transmits--that is unless and until--the President transmits to the congressional defense committees a written certification signed by the President, Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stating, again, the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces are being met and would be met with a change in policy.

Those are just two points the Senator from Arizona made that I wish to commend at this time. I believe there is going to be opportunity for further debate tomorrow something like an hour and a half in the morning, although that is being worked on at this time.

But further debate on this bill can be had by anybody who wishes to proceed to it. But I hope we can proceed to the consideration of this bill. This is a motion to proceed to consideration of the bill. All the rights of filibustering and extended debate will be preserved on the bill itself if we can only get to debate the bill. Amendments will be available. Either amendments adding or amendments striking will be available.

But we have to get to the bill. I mean, people are making arguments about the bill which belong at the time of the debate on the bill. But unless we can get to the point where we can debate the bill, it is kind of a theoretical debate we are having--whether it is don't ask, don't tell, whether it is the DREAM Act, whether it is other things which people would either like to change that are in the bill or would like to add to the bill.

As my good friend from Delaware who is presiding at the moment knows, there are provisions in this bill that I opposed in committee that I would like to see stricken from the bill. But to oppose debate on a bill because there are provisions in the bill that we do not like or we would like to see added, it seems to me, engages in an exercise which is not what the intent of the Senate ever was. We should debate bills. We should amend bills. We should offer amendments to strike provisions, to add provisions. But to deny the Senate the opportunity to get to the point where we are debating on the Defense authorization bill is something which seems to me totally unacceptable.

We need to support our troops. This bill is a bill to support the men and women wearing the uniform of this country and their families. One can argue there are provisions in this bill which should not be in the bill. Fine. Debate them. Vote on them. But to say we should not get to the bill which contains provisions so critical for the well being and success of our men and women in the Armed Forces, it seems to me, is totally inconsistent with what the Armed Services Committee and this Senate need to be about, which is providing for the defense and security of the country and the well being of the men and women who put on the uniform of this country.

So I hope we will get cloture tomorrow and proceed to the debate, which is totally appropriate, on a whole bunch of issues.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Reid, I ask unanimous consent that Joshua Campbell, currently serving as his military legislative fellow, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of S. 3454, the Defense authorization bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jocelyn Hemler, a military fellow in Senator Dodd's office, and Anna Staton, of the HELP Committee, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the 111th Congress.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 374, S. 624.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee- reported substitute amendment be considered; that a Durbin amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; that the substitute amendment, as amended, be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed; that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; and that any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 4505 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be

read the third time and passed, that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 630, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.