Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, this bill is the 47th consecutive national defense authorization bill that has come out of the committee and been brought to the Senate floor for debate and passage. Every year since 1961, the Senate has met the challenge, overcome obstacles, and negotiated ourselves to the point of final passage. Because of the vital importance of this bill to the men and women of our Armed Forces and to the Nation, this was a bill that was worth fighting for for passage. It is part of the rich tradition of the Senate. We all can be proud of that tradition.

It is also part of our custom to thank our staffs and Members. For some this sounds routine, but it never should be.

My thanks go to the ranking member, Senator McCain. His leadership helped forge this bill through the committee.

I next acknowledge our former chairman particularly, Senator Warner, because of everything he did to make this bill possible and to get to the point where we are today. Working within arm's reach of John Warner for the past 29 years has truly been one of the highlights, if not the highlight, of my Senate career. He is truly a good friend, not just to me and my wife Barbara but also to this institution and to the Nation. He has stood watch over national defense for almost three decades, with unwavering dedication. Before that, he stood watch because of his being Secretary of the Navy. Because of his being in the Navy, the Marines, he is truly a profile in courage. Next year, we promise we will pick up his banner. We will carry on in his honor, just as he has always done for the Nation.

I thank our majority leader, Senator Reid, and his floor staff and give them a special word of thanks for giving us the time to get this bill to the Senate and through the Senate.

To our committee members, thanks for your great work on a bipartisan basis the entire year. This bill could not have gotten to this point, with all of our problems, all the bumps in the road--and there are many that lie ahead--but we could not have gotten to this point without the bipartisan support of the Armed Services Committee and our staff.

We have one-quarter of the Senate on our committee. We have worked together in committee, and our differences on this bill did not divide us, as we reported the bill by unanimous vote.

To Charlie Armstrong in the Office of the Senate Legislative Counsel, thank you for drafting about 300 amendments. We wish more of them could have been adopted, but, nonetheless, they had to be drafted, and we had to do what we do, which is to do everything we can to get Members' amendments passed.

To our committee staff members, thank you. That is about all we can say. You have earned our thanks and the recognition of the Senate for the time and dedication you have shown on this legislation. Rick DeBobes, who is our staff director, and Mike Kostiw, who is our Republican staff director, and their talented staffs worked amazingly hard.

We have a lot of work ahead of us to get to the point where we can pass a bill in the next couple of weeks. We have a huge amount of work. I hate to tell them that, but they know it. They also know, I hope, how appreciated they are. They work 24/7, and they work magic, and they always seem to believe that sleep is overrated. It is not. I hope they can get some in the next few days. So thank you to our staff. They deserve tremendous recognition for their professionalism. As an expression of the gratitude of the members of our committee, I ask unanimous consent that the names of the members of our staff be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Virginia for outlining the history of this issue in which we are involved. I am particularly gratified that he now agrees the DeMint amendment will be a significant abdication of legislative power to the executive branch. The reason that would be true is, there would be no reference to the line items we have worked so hard on in law or by reference in law, and that would mean the only thing that would be remaining would be a committee report that has all the work of our committee, not just the earmarks which we have added but also the lines we have added or subtracted to what the President has requested. That is the essential point relative to the DeMint amendment. It would be an absolutely revolutionary change in the powers of the purse, shifting a great deal of that power to the executive branch.

I am delighted the Senator from Virginia has stated it exactly that clearly, or approximately that clearly, so that, hopefully, we can, if not unanimously but on a bipartisan basis defeat the DeMint amendment, if it is offered. Then the question comes up: How can we then incorporate all our effort in committee into the law? There is a lot of problems with doing it, which we pointed out during the committee debate, including the lack of flexibility that this would result in for the President in terms of reprogramming because now every line becomes a program, and that means it would be harder to shift money than it is now because it is easier to shift money within a program through reprogramming than it is between programs. That was an argument which we used in committee. We believe it is true that the executive branch will have less flexibility when it comes to reprogramming if every single line is in law. However, if that is what this body wishes to do--to make it less flexible for the President to offer reprogramming suggestions--that is a problem the executive branch should have, not ours.

Our problem is it would be difficult, if not impossible, to get a conference report--first of all, it is difficult enough to get to conference, but then it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to bring a conference report back in the next couple weeks. We have gone through these numbers with the minority. We have a clear assessment by the Government Printing Office that it would add about 4\1/2\ days to their work if every single line were made part of the bill rather than being

simply incorporated by reference in the bill, as it now is. We should not take a chance on jeopardizing this bill. This bill is too important to be jeopardized.

The difference between incorporating all these lines by reference in the bill and actually printing them in the bill is either minor, minute or nonexistent legally. What this bill does is incorporate by reference all these lines. They are incorporate into the bill. They are transparent--as transparent as though they were printed in the bill. This green document is no less transparent than this white document. They are both equally transparent. The work of our committee is laid out in the moment in the green document. In this white document, which is the bill, we incorporate by reference in the bill all the line items so they are in the bill, and they can be changed by an amendment which says no money will be spent or less money will be spent for a particular item. It is very readily addressable by the Senate on the floor. The transparency issue is the same. They are both transparent and should be.

So then the question becomes: Is the nonexistent or minute difference between incorporating all these charts in here by law or actually printing them in here, should that risk the passage of this bill? They can be addressed by amendment on the floor of the Senate, even though they are incorporated by reference.

Now, this bill, as my good friend from Virginia says, is too important for us not to pass. We have never not passed an authorization bill, and this should not be the first year, when we have troops in harm's way, when we do not pass a Defense authorization bill. There are hundreds of provisions in here which directly affect the troops and their families. It would be unconscionable for us not to pass a Defense authorization bill. The reason for jeopardizing it simply does not hold water.

So that is the dilemma we are in. If the Warner amendment is adopted, it would seriously jeopardize the chances of being able to pass a bill, even if we can get to conference in the next couple of days. That assessment was made over the weekend in terms of the number of days' delay that would result. That assessment was made by the Government Printing Office. They spent 700 person hours over the weekend at the Government Printing Office to give us this assessment. This is not some casual assessment off the back of an envelope; this is a very serious assessment that was made at huge expense over the weekend in order to give us the most accurate idea as to what the delay would be if we had to print each one of those thousands of lines in the bill itself, instead of incorporating them in the bill by reference. We should not jeopardize the passage of this bill.

That is the only difficulty I now have as a legislator with the Warner amendment. The other difficulty, which we pointed out in committee, has to do with the lack of flexibility that would result to the executive branch in their reprogramming requests. That is a problem the executive branch needs to face, I would think, but as a legislator, what we have to protect is the power of our purse, the power of this Congress to make changes. That is protected in the Warner amendment.

What the Warner amendment does is put at risk this bill, as it may be physically impossible to get to conference, the conference completed, and a conference report back by the end of next week. If we knew there was going to be a lameduck, there would be no problem because we could do this in a lameduck session no matter how much time it took between now and then, but we don't know that there will be a lameduck session.

So the question is whether we are willing to take this risk. I, for one, cannot in good conscience risk the passage of this bill. Although I don't have any problem now with the Warner amendment in terms of its substance, it is what it would result in, in terms of the bill not being able to be adopted as a practical matter.

My problems with the DeMint amendment are very serious and severe. I hope that amendment is not offered, and if it is, I would hope, on a bipartisan basis, it would be rejected by a Senate which has the responsibility to abide by the Constitution of the United States and maintain the power of the purse.

I thank the Senator. Before I do that, Senator Webb came to the floor when I assured him he would be able to discuss his amendment, and I am wondering if we could ask unanimous consent that Senator Webb be recognized as soon as our colloquy is completed and then that Senator Collins be recognized after Senator Webb.

I wonder if I could inquire of the Senator from Maine how much time she would be using.

If I could inquire of the Senator from Virginia how much time he would be using.

If either had said 9 minutes, they would have had a better case.

I wonder if the two Senators whom we referred to could get together and resolve this issue for us as to who would go first and who would go second. Could we ask the two Senators to perhaps help us out on that, and then I would ask that after we talk, if we could have a UC as to that procedure.

In terms of the schedule, assuming we could get the bill passed by tomorrow, which would probably be lucky because there are a number of amendments that are in that unanimous consent agreement that are referred to specifically that have time connected to them--if we could get this bill passed by tomorrow, or cloture invoked, then there is 30 hours of postcloture. We don't know whether that would be used by any of our colleagues. They have a right to do that, and around here, as we know, frequently that 30-hour period is used. If it is not used, we would then have to name conferees, which hopefully would be done fairly quickly. Then the House reviews the Senate bill and determines the committee jurisdiction and names their conferees. That, at a minimum, is

2 to 3 days for the House to do that--to go through that process to see what committees have jurisdiction over the language in our bill, other than the Armed Services Committee. Then the House and the Senate staffs have to match up these provisions for conference. That usually takes 2 days--usually takes 2 days. So if we are lucky, we could start conference 3 to 4 days after passage of this bill, although it usually takes a longer period of time. So if we pass this bill tomorrow, that would take us to the end of the--that would take the House to the end of the week to be ready for conference, if we started conference on Monday. Whatever period the conference takes, even if it took 2 or 3 days, it is the middle of next week. That is before the 4-day period is triggered.

There has.

I don't think we have any difference on that, in terms of the ability of people of good faith to get things done.

This assumes maximum crunch, what I specified for the Senator from Virginia. This is an optimistic view of the timetable, where everybody is using 24/7, to the extent that human bodies permit. We don't have any difference in terms of that.

I am wondering if our two friends from Virginia and Maine have resolved who would go first. Could we then allow them to proceed in the order they have agreed upon, and then the Senator from Virginia and I could pick this up after that.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent----

It shouldn't trigger a problem. We use it all day around here. I am simply stating the order for the two Senators to know.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Maine be recognized for 10 minutes, and the Senator from Virginia then be recognized for 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I commend Senator Webb for this sense-of- the-Senate resolution. We have the assurance of the administration that they will share the text with the leadership of the Congress and with the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees and Foreign Relations Committees. But this goes beyond it and takes an essential step beyond that commitment.

We should be involved in this kind of a long-term relationship. I commend

the Senator from Virginia for his drafting of this amendment. It is very careful. I believe, based on the assurance of Senator Warner, that it will be included in any UC that is propounded. I hope that UC--any UC--can be adopted and that, indeed, it will include the Webb amendment as having the assurance of a vote.

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 suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank the leader and I thank Senator Warner for his statement in support of cloture. It is a difficult and courageous vote. I commend them on it.

The issue here is not earmarks; the issue is a perception that is being perpetrated that it is about earmarks. This green book is our committee report. It lists all of the items to be added to it and subtracted. This white book is our bill. It incorporates the charts and lines from the committee

report and is incorporated into this bill as law. The lines here--add- ons, subtractions, all of the requests of the President that weren't touched, by the thousands--are incorporated by reference in our bill.

The amendment of Senator DeMint, who wants to eliminate the incorporation by reference, has exactly the opposite effect. All the line items that were added or subtracted would not be part of the bill if the DeMint amendment were agreed to. They would remain in the committee report without incorporation by reference in the bill. It goes exactly the opposite direction of making ``earmarks'' part of law.

The Warner amendment, on the other hand, would incorporate not just by reference but all of the language in the thousands of lines in the bill. The problem is that it would take so much time, according to the Government Printing Office, to do that, we probably could not get to conference and back to the Senate unless we had a lameduck session. We don't know that we will.

We cannot jeopardize this bill, which means so much to the men and women in the Armed Forces, by a requirement that achieves no purpose because the lines are already incorporated by reference, that achieves only the perception of a purpose, which apparently meets some political needs of people who are out campaigning. That is not enough to jeopardize the Defense bill.

This bill means everything to the men and women in the armed services. It should mean everything to us because they mean everything to us. We cannot jeopardize this bill by any action which may make it impossible for us to bring back a bill from conference.

I wish to end by again complimenting Senator Warner. He has been absolutely wonderful in trying to work out a unanimous consent agreement. I treasure our 30 years together. I wish we could end this with a cloture vote that would allow us to finish positively the great effort he has put in. I hope we can get 60 votes for cloture.

Cloture Motion

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

Mr. President, now that cloture has been invoked on our bill, we are going to be working very hard with Senators who have germane amendments that have not been cleared to see if we can make progress on such amendments. We not only request that Senators who have such amendments come promptly to the floor to meet with us or our staffs, but we also have to recognize that any such amendment, if it is not in a cleared package, would require consent, given the parliamentary situation. We have a cleared package already, which I think is upwards, perhaps, of 90 amendments or so, which we would hope to add to before we offer it to the Senate by unanimous consent.

After Senator Warner has an opportunity to speak, I think we will put in a quorum call and do some other work we need to do in order to get to the next stage in this bill. Hopefully, we can now move promptly on this bill now that cloture is invoked. I thank the Senator from Virginia for all he did to make that possible.

Mr. President, we will, of course, do our very best, working with Senators, to add to this package. There are some possibilities there. Again, I wish to alert Senators to the fact that we are in a postcloture situation, which means they must be germane unless there is unanimous consent to the contrary. Also, the parliamentary situation is such that it would require consent. But as the Senator from Virginia wisely points out, we are going to do our very best to not be limited to technicalities if we can get consent of the body to obviate those technicalities.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 16, 2008, at 10:30 a.m., in room 253V the Russell Senate Office Building.

In this hearing, the Committee will receive testimony regarding the consumer benefits of broadband service in areas such as education, job opportunities, telemedicine, and access to government resources.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, September 16, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 16, 2008, at 10 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to hold a hearing entitled ``Oversight Hearing on EPA's Children's Health Protection Efforts.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 16, 2008, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Aligning Incentives: The Case for Delivery System Reform.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Energy be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, September 16, 2008, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Restoring the Rule of Law'' on Tuesday, September 16, 2008, at 10:15 a.m., in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Rules Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 5893 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 900, H.R. 5551.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate

proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 947, S. 3023.

Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the Akaka amendment be agreed to; that the committee's substitute amendment, as amended, be agreed to; the bill be read a third time and passed; the title amendment be agreed to; the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration of S. Con. Res. 87, and that the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the

preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Harkin be authorized to sign the duly enrolled copy of S. 3406, a bill to restore the intent and protections of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow, Wednesday, September 17; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate proceed to a period of morning business for up to 1 hour, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the Republicans controlling the second half; that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of S. 3001, the National Defense Authorization Act; further, that all time in adjournment, recess, and morning business count postcloture.

Mr. President, cloture was invoked this afternoon and the managers of the bill continue to work through filed amendments. We expect to complete action on the Defense authorization bill during tomorrow's session and rollcall votes are possible throughout the day.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Virginia. First, we have, I think, about 50 or more amendments that our staffs have worked very hard on and we have been consulted on, obviously, which we will be able to vote on hopefully today, if possible, and if not, as soon as we get clearance from Senator Warner's side, we will be happy to proceed with them. We are going to keep working on additional amendments.

In the meantime, we are together working to try to come up with a unanimous consent request which can get the approval of this body. We need Members to come to the floor to try to work with us on those amendments. Where rollcalls are going to be necessary, we can fit them in at sometime prior, hopefully, to the vote on cloture. As the leader said, we need to have a unanimous consent agreement in hand prior to that cloture vote for the sake of the body.

I worry a great deal about the future of our bill. I say ``our bill'' because this is a bipartisan bill. This is not a partisan committee, and it is not a partisan bill. I worry about what is going to happen to our bill if we cannot either get a unanimous consent agreement or cloture tomorrow--one or the other.

We will continue to be here this afternoon. Hopefully, colleagues will come to the floor and work with us and our staffs to either work out amendments or, if rollcalls are necessary, to find a spot for those rollcalls to take place.

I object, Mr. President.