Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set side so I may say a few words.

Mr. President, let me begin, first, by thanking Chairman Johnson and Senator Hutchison for their fine work in preparing this measure before us. Similar to the other appropriations bills for fiscal year 2010, this bill, which provides the necessary funding for military construction and veterans programs, was prepared by the subcommittee on a bipartisan basis.

I am very pleased to advise my colleagues in the Senate that the committee endorsed the bill unanimously and forwarded this matter to the Senate for consideration.

As my colleagues are aware, we are already more than 1 month into the new fiscal year, and we simply need to complete our work on this measure.

Moreover, Wednesday is Veterans Day. It would truly send the right message to our veterans for the Senate to pass this bill before November 11.

Again, I wish to commend the chairman and Senator Hutchison for their fine work on this measure and urge its adoption.

Amendment No. 2754

Mr. President, I rise to discuss amendment No. 2754, which has been cosponsored by Senators Johnson and Cochran, to reallocate unobligated fiscal year 2009 military construction funding to support President Obama's new European missile defense plan. The funding was appropriated in last year's appropriations bill for the European missile defense sites but can no longer be spent.

This amendment will enable the Missile Defense Agency to meet the President's timelines for defending Europe and the United States sooner against Iranian missiles.

I strongly endorse the President's European missile defense plan. This new approach will enhance the protection of our allies in Europe, U.S. forces and their families deployed abroad, and the U.S. homeland from ballistic missile attack sooner than the previous program.

It is more robust and responsive to the increasingly pervasive short- and medium-range missile threats and is adaptable to longer range threats in the future. The new architecture focuses on using the proven standard missile-3 on Aegis ships and on land, together with additional sensor capability to provide more effective protection for ourselves and our allies.

In order to meet the timelines set out by the President to deploy a capability in Europe in the 2015 timeframe, General O'Reilly, Director of the Missile Defense Agency, has requested the Congress to reprogram $68.5 million to construct an Aegis ashore test facility at the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Hawaii. This amendment responds to that request.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from General O'Reilly requesting this transfer of funds.

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

Our goal is to complete this project in time to support the

first flight test of the land-based standard-missile 3

interceptor in FY 2012, which would require construction

funding to be available for obligation in FY 2010.

I offer this amendment with some reservation. It is critical to getting missile defense to Europe sooner, but it circumvents the normal order of business in the Senate under ordinary circumstances. This project should have been authorized in the fiscal year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act and then appropriated in the Military Construction bill. I take that process seriously and wish to explain to my colleagues the special circumstances under which I offer this amendment.

President Obama publicly announced his European missile defense strategy on September 17 of this year. This announcement came well after the House and Senate Armed Services Committees began the conference negotiation process.

In order to implement the President's new plan, General O'Reilly made the request to Congress for an AEGIS ashore test facility on October 7, the same day that the House and Senate completed the conference agreement on the Defense authorization bill. Due to conflicts in timing, the conferees were not able to consider this late request from the administration. Thus, an amendment on the fiscal year 2010 Military Construction appropriations bill is the best path to get the facility started in order to meet the administration's timelines. If there was a better way to proceed, I would do so. Unfortunately, these unusual circumstances have put us in this situation.

The fiscal year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act provided flexibility for the Missile Defense Agency to spend over $240 million of research and development funding in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 to purchase equipment associated with the AEGIS ashore test facility and begin the development of the new European ballistic missile defense architecture. The military construction funding is needed at this time in conjunction with the research and development funding to begin implementation of the European missile defense plan.

Let me also make clear that this amendment is not asking for additional money. This funding is presently available. The Missile Defense Agency has over $150 million in fiscal year 2009 unobligated funds that were appropriated for the missile defense sites in the Czech Republic and Poland that are no longer needed. This amendment would use a portion of those funds to begin construction of the AEGIS ashore test facility in fiscal year 2010.

Lastly, let me comment on the site chosen for the AEGIS ashore test facility. According to the Missile Defense Agency, the Pacific Missile Range Facility on the island of Kauai has been the center of excellence for AEGIS ballistic missile defense testing for the last 12 years and will continue in that regard for the next decade. Indeed, just 2 weeks ago, the Pacific Missile Range Facility hosted the successful intercept test of the Japanese AEGIS ballistic missile defense program. To date, the Pacific Missile Range has supported 20 AEGIS tests. In addition, PMRF also has a proud track record of testing the Missile Defense Agency's Theater High Altitude Area Defense System, with five tests at the range since 2007.

The Pacific Missile Range Facility is the world's largest instrumented missile testing and training range. The Department of Defense and the Missile Defense Agency, in particular, utilize this range due to its relative isolation and ideal year-round climate and encroachment-free environment. Furthermore, it is the only range in the world where submarines, surface ships, aircraft, and space vehicles can operate and be tracked simultaneously. For these reasons, the Missile Defense Agency believes the Pacific Missile Range Facility is the ideal location to support AEGIS ashore testing.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. If this test facility does not get started in fiscal year 2010, the Missile Defense Agency will not be able to meet the flight test scheduled to demonstrate AEGIS ashore capability prior to the administration's proposed 2015 deployment date to Europe. It is a very important amendment.

Amendment No. 2754 to Amendment No. 2730

Madam President, I now call up amendment No. 2754 and ask for its consideration.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I set aside my request.

Mr. President, I submit pursuant to Senate rules a report, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Madam President, the conference report before the Senate provides funding for the Department of the Interior and related programs. While the funds in this measure represent a significant increase over the funding levels provided in fiscal year 2009 they are greatly needed by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Forest Service, our national parks, and other agencies which provide critical support to all Americans.

I would also note that the increase is within the amounts approved by the Senate in the budget resolution. In fact, each bill and conference agreement tha the Appropriations Committee has forwarded to the Senate has been within the amounts approved by the Congress. Those who object to the spending in these bills ignore that the Congress approved these funding levels earlier this year.

I would share my colleagues' concern with spending if the Appropriations Committee were exceeding the amounts approved in the budget, but in point of fact we are not. Moreover, in total the amounts that are in this bill when combined with the other 11 appropriations bills are below the amounts requested by the administration.

That is only one reason, but an important consideration in why these bills have received nearly unanimous support from Senator Cochran and the other Republican members of the committee. Once again, this Interior conference report saw nearly unanimous support from the Senate conferees.

Over the past few months we have heard the repeated cries that we are spending too much. But to reiterate, the facts are we are spending less than requested by the administration and the same amount or less than was approved by the Congress.

Included in the conference agreement is a short term extension of the continuing resolution. Regrettably, an additional extension of the CR is necessary because we are still unable to complete action on all 12 bills. I want to remind my colleagues that upon assuming the chairmanship of the committee last January I vowed that we would strive to end the process of tying all 12 bills into an omnibus bill which affords all members less opportunity to debate and amend these important measures.

I was extremely pleased to learn last spring that every one of our Republican colleagues signed a letter to the majority leader urging him to provide ample floor time to consider these bills. And, I must thank the leader, and the minority leader as well for allowing these bills to be considered.

No one can accuse the majority of not trying to return to regular order. We have passed seven appropriations bills to date, and today the Senate is considering our fifth appropriations conference report. We hope to complete Senate action on two or more measures next week.

This has not been easy. Each time an appropriations bill has been called up a handful of Members have used their rights to slow down the process. Our managers have been forced to wait 2 and even 3 days before the same Members, time after time, are willing to call up amendments.

The Senate has been in session about 153 days this year. On 56 days, so far, the body has been considering an appropriations measure. That is more than 11 weeks. We have tried to elicit cooperation on these measures, but once again a few members, who seem to oppose the appropriations process, must believe that we are better off under a continuing resolution in which the executive branch makes all spending decisions than allowing the Congress to do its work. Because of this approach, we find ourselves in need of passing another CR.

Division A of this conference report represents the hard work of Senators Feinstein and Alexander along with all the members of the subcommittee and their staffs. It contains critical funding that is needed today. I support the compromise that Chairman Feinstein and Senator Alexander brokered on a biipartisan fashion. I commend them for their fine work.

Division B of the conference agreement extends the current continuing resolution until Friday December 18. There are also two technical corrections in the bill that fix problems in the original CR. In addition, three new issues are added which generally have the support of the administration and should be noncontroversial.

First, the Small Business Administration will be allowed to use $80 million to continue Small Business 7(a) loans during the CR period. Without this authority, SBA expects to have to turn off its loan program in November.

Second, up to $200,000,000 of funds made available in the Omnibus bill will be allowed to be used to adjust allocations for public housing agencies to prevent cutting off assistance to poor families. Without this authority the administration believes up to 10,000 families would lose their housing assistance.

Third, the bill allows for government-sponsored mortgage holders to continue to loan funds at higher level loans so that high cost areas are still covered. The current law expires in December. The Department of Housing and Urban Development expects that in anticipation of the expiration of the authority lenders will start to stop credit for these high-cost loans as early as November.

The House has already approved this provision in its 2010 THUD Appropriations bill, but since that bill has not yet been completed, this action is necessary at this time.

Some of my colleagues may be concerned that we have attached the CR to this bill. It is clear as I have pointed out that we cannot expedite passage of appropriations bills this year because of a small number of opponents. Each bill has taken nearly a week to pass all because of a few Members wanting to delay.

For example, the Energy Water conference report which passed with nearly 80 votes took 3 days of delay before we were allowed to vote.

As such, regrettably this approach is necessary. I urge all my colleagues to support the swift passage of this bill to avoid a devastating shut down of government operations.

And, finally I urge my colleagues to cooperate with the managers of our appropriations bills in the coming weeks as we seek to pass our remaining bills. Without cooperation, we will no doubt be forced to return to an omnibus-type of approach which limits all Members' right to debate and amend the measures that the committee has recommended.

Mr. President, this day I am reminded how grateful I am to the people of Hawaii for honoring me all these years. I just hope my work here has returned this great favor they have given me.

I can think of many good things that have happened, but the thing I will always cherish is the friendship of my colleagues--friendship that extends on both sides of the aisle. I think that is the way we should look upon the Congress and the Senate. Therefore, I am pleased that as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I can tell one and all that out of the 12 bills, 10 were reported out unanimously, 2 with 1 opposition. That is bipartisanship, and we intend to keep it that way.

Once again, I thank my colleagues for their many courtesies and today they have honored me greatly. Aloha.

Mr. President, I submit pursuant to Senate rules a report, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I submit pursuant to Senate rules a report, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I submit pursuant to Senate rules a report, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the Senate is now considering the 8th of 12 Appropriations bills reported by the Appropriations Committee this year, the fiscal year 2010 Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations bill.

This bill includes total resources of $65.15 billion, an increase in funding of $7.2 billion above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. While on first blush this level of funding may appear generous, Members need only to look at the accounts in this bill to understand the need for these additional funds.

Specifically, fiscal year 2010 is the peak funding year for preparations for the constitutionally mandated decennial census. As a result, an additional $4.1 billion above the fiscal year 2009 omnibus enacted level is required for this account alone.

The next largest increase is for science. On August 9, 2007, then- President Bush signed into law the America Competes Act, legislation that moved through this Chamber with 69 cosponsors and passed the Senate by unanimous consent.

That legislation called for the doubling of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics funding for the purpose of investing in scientific innovation and education to improve the competitiveness of the United States in the global economy.

This bill includes an increase of $1.7 billion for NASA, NOAA and NSF science programs, all of which contribute to the goals of the America Competes Act and bolster our economic competitiveness.

Finally, the bill provides for an increase of $580 million for the FBI which allows that agency to continue its efforts to fight both terrorism and violent crime in this country.

Senators Mikulski and Shelby have worked diligently to offer a strong bipartisan bill that tackles the needs of law enforcement, supports scientific research in both space and in our oceans, and invests in scientific innovation and education. I applaud them for their hard work and bipartisan cooperation.

As with the other seven bills that have come before the Senate for consideration to date, the committee supported their recommendations unanimously, and the bill was reported out of the Appropriations Committee on June 25 by a recorded vote of 30 to 0.

This bill has been available for review by members for more than 3 months, so if a Member has an amendment, they should be willing to come to the floor today and offer it. At this point, it makes no sense for Members to delay.

Vice Chairman Cochran and I, along with the other subcommittee chair and ranking members have worked diligently to restore regular order to the appropriations process. We have come a long way in responding to what was asked of us at the beginning of the year.

But for us to succeed, it takes the cooperation of all Members of the Senate. Therefore, I strongly encourage my colleagues not to delay action on this bill.

Mr. President, I submit pursuant to Senate rules a report, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Am I correct to assume that the first 30 minutes has been equally divided?

I yield myself 10 minutes.

At the beginning of the year, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and I announced earmark reforms that go far beyond the transparency requirements enacted in 2007.

These reforms include a requirement for Members to post their earmark requests on their Web sites, make substantial reductions in the number and amount of earmarks compared to prior years' appropriations bills, and early and prompt committee announcements on which projects are funded in each of the annual appropriations bills.

There has never been as much transparency in the earmark process as there is today. In most cases, the public has had several months to review their elected Representatives' requests for funding. The bill on the floor today has 200 fewer projects and $300 million less in funding for Member projects than last year's bill.

I believe this is a considerable improvement to how Congress does its business.

As chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I welcome any constructive suggestions on how to improve the operations and efficiency of the ways in which the committee accomplishes its vital work.

However, those suggestions should not compromise the constitutional principle that the power of the purse is invested in the Congress, and not the executive.

We must retain the checks and balances and keep the Congress and the executive as separate and co-equal branches of government.

That is why I must oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona. It purports to increase transparency of congressional earmarks by subjecting all of them to full and open competition.

In reality, it exempts congressional priorities from the normal, lawful process of how the Department of Defense purchases equipment, engages services, and develops new technologies.

For example, we have included a number of earmarks for which the Department has negotiated contracts already in place. These contracts were negotiated in full compliance with the law.

Simply because Congress added funds to accelerate important programs, such as the TB-33 towed sonar array, handheld radios for Special Operations Command, advanced radars for the F-15 fighter, and virtual interactive training equipment for National Guard units around the country, the McCain amendment would require a new competition to take place.

This would disrupt important programs, delay procurement of valuable equipment, and cost the taxpayer more money.

The McCain amendment also disregards the fact that sometimes the Pentagon gets it wrong. There are many programs which are now in use on the battlefield that would not be there if the Defense Department's views had prevailed years ago.

Congress directed funds to the Predator unmanned aerial vehicle, lifesaving Chitosan bandages, and the V-22--programs that would not exist if Congress had not directed funds to those specific purposes.

I ask my colleagues, What do they suppose would have happened to those programs if the Pentagon's bureaucracy had put these programs through the redtape required by the McCain amendment? Would the Predator be attacking our enemies in Afghanistan and Iraq? Or might it still be an exquisite, complex system that remains on the drawing board year after year?

Ultimately the McCain amendment establishes two sets of acquisition laws: one for items requested by the President, which may be subject to full and open, limited or no competition at all; and another set of rules for items added by the Congress.

The amendment rests on the faulty assumption that the Defense Department is unable to conduct oversight on congressionally directed spending, and that earmarks do not serve valid military purposes.

In 2008, the Inspector General of the Department of Defense reviewed 219 earmarks from the fiscal year 2007 Defense Appropriations Act.

The Inspector General determined:

The DOD personnel we interviewed and the respondents to our

data call said that DOD performs oversight of earmarks

identical to the oversight of other expenditures.

Furthermore, of the 219 earmarks that were reviewed by the Inspector General, all but 4 were found to ``advance the primary mission and goals of the Department of Defense.''

None of these four earmarks is contained in this year's bill. Even if they were, none of them would be competed under the McCain amendment because each of those earmarks was awarded to a nonprofit institution.

Due to these shortcomings in the amendment which has been offered, I have proposed an alternative amendment.

My amendment insures that each earmark added by Congress to benefit a for-profit entity shall be subject to the very same acquisition regulations that apply to items requested by the President in his annual budget request. This proposal applies the rules of the road equally to Congress and the President.

The amendment I propose also contains the standard exceptions to competition, including small business set-asides. The McCain amendment, on the other hand, would eliminate these standard exemptions to competition for earmarks that support small businesses, minority-owned businesses, women-owned businesses, and service-connected disabled veteran-owned businesses.

My amendment is a reasonable and fair approach to balancing the acquisition rules as they apply to congressional spending items and items requested by the President. It insures that all spending items that are funded in this bill, regardless of who proposed them, are subject to the same rules for competition. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and oppose the McCain amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Mississippi, the vice chairman of this committee, for his generous remarks.

I would like to point out to the Senate, this bill represents thousands of manhours of study, of research, of discussion, of debate. It contains spending of $636.6 billion. It is a huge amount. We take our vows and responsibilities very seriously. It might be interesting to note that this measure--this huge measure--was passed by the Appropriations Committee by a vote of 30 to 0. It is a bipartisan bill. It was passed unanimously. These things do not happen every day, Mr. President. It demonstrates and I think it illustrates what bipartisanship can do, what work can do, and what investigation can do.

Senator Cochran and I are proud to present this measure to the Senate, to our colleagues, and we hope it will be passed accordingly.

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to discuss the Defense Subcommittee's recommendations regarding the fiscal year 2010 missile defense programs. This bill supports the administration's request, stays at the authorized funding levels, and, most importantly, recommends changes that augment programs that this Congress has been championing year after year.

The committee strongly supports the near-term missile defense programs, including ground-based missile defense, Aegis sea-based missile defense, and theater high altitude area defense. The committee added funding to the budget request in order to enhance each of these initiatives and ensure that the administration remains focused on these programs that are supporting the warfighter today.

The committee provides an additional $50 million above the budget request for the ground-based missile defense, GMD, program. After the administration submitted its budget for GMD, the Department of Defense approved a new integrated master test plan for the Missile Defense Agency, MDA. This plan requires seven additional ground-based interceptors that were not part of the budget request.

The Department informed the committee that additional funding was needed to sustain the production line in fiscal year 2010 in order to avoid costs associated with reconstituting the line in future years. The committee agreed with the Department and increased the funding.

This bill also provides funds above the budget request that will support the administration's new missile defense architecture in Europe. I strongly endorse the new plan. This new approach will enhance the protection of our allies in Europe, U.S. forces and their families deployed abroad, and the U.S. homeland from ballistic missile attack sooner than the previous program.

Some of my colleagues have stated that we are cancelling missile defense in Europe. Those indictments are simply inaccurate. Earlier this month, Secretary Gates responded to those types of criticisms as ``either misinformed or misrepresenting the reality of what we are doing.'' I would have to agree with him.

Under the prior administration's approach, the missile defense system would not be capable of protecting against Iranian missiles until at least 2017. Under the new plan, the more threatened areas of Europe and the U.S. forces stationed there will have protection by the end of 2011. Given Iran's brazen missile tests late last month and its recent disclosure of a new, secret uranium enrichment facility, we need to get the right capability fielded sooner.

The 10 interceptors that would have been emplaced in Poland under the previous plan were only capable of engaging five ballistic missiles from Iran. Any number greater than five overwhelmed the proposed system, thereby rendering the U.S. homeland, U.S. allies and partners, as well as our deployed troops and their families, vulnerable. Furthermore, these interceptors are not effective against short- and medium-range missiles that are proliferating around the world.

The system proposed under the new plan is more robust. It will provide the U.S. and its allies with the protection necessary to counter today's real ballistic missile threats. The new plan is more responsive to the increasingly pervasive short- and medium-range missile threat and is adaptable to respond to longer range threats in the future.

The new architecture focuses on using the proven standard Missile-3 on Aegis ships and on the land together with additional sensor capability to provide more effective protection for ourselves and our allies.

I am pleased to say that the Defense appropriations bill provides over $130

million in additional funding to support this new initiative:

The current inventory of SM-3 missiles is woefully inadequate to outfit the fleet of Aegis ballistic missile defense ships. The committee adds nearly $60 million to procure an additional 6 SM-3 interceptors to ensure that more missiles are available. This funding will bring production capacity up to the current level.

The bill adds over $40 million to begin procurement of an additional TPY-2 radar that could be deployed to Southern Europe. This is precisely what the new plan calls for. The additional sensor coverage will support protection of our European allies and deployed forces. It will also enhance the defense of the United States since it can provide early and precise tracking data for the U.S. ground-based interceptors emplaced in Alaska and California.

Finally, the committee provides an additional $35 million to continue development of SM-3 interceptors. This increased funding will accelerate the future upgrades of SM-3. These advancements are intended to increase the range and lethality of the SM-3 missiles on Aegis ships and the land-based component of the new European architecture. This is a critical component to counter the threat of Iranian longer range missiles in the future.

In order to stay at the authorized level for missile defense, while at the same time adding funds to robustly support the near-term missile defense programs and the new European missile defense plan, the committee had to make difficult trade-offs.

The committee reduced programs that are technically challenging and uncertain to show promise for years to come.

The committee also reduced funds that were not needed in fiscal year 2010. For instance, several of my colleagues have expressed concern that this bill reduces funding for tests and targets by $150 million. Our committee strongly supports a robust test program for missile defense, but we do not support funding that cannot be executed next year. The committee reduced funds that are premature for fiscal year 2010 and will not be required until later years. Let me explain.

In fiscal year 2009, the Congress appropriated nearly $920 million for test and targets. According to data provided by the Missile Defense Agency, as of August 31, they have only spent $360 million of those funds. This means that the Agency will carry forward into fiscal year 2010 about $560 million.

The fiscal year 2010 request for test and targets is nearly $970 million, a $50 million increase over last year's funding.

The committee believes that a $150 million reduction will not impact the testing program in fiscal year 2010. With the unexpended funds from fiscal year 2009 and this committee's recommendation for fiscal year 2010, MDA will have over $1.3 billion for testing purposes.

Furthermore, some of my colleagues will say that the reduction in the test and target budget line will stop testing of the two-stage ground- based interceptor that was intended for Poland under the prior administration's plan. That is simply not the case. Nowhere in this bill does the committee deny funding for the two-stage interceptor tests.

Indeed, the bulk of funding for these two tests is not in the test and target line of the budget request. Most of the funds for these tests are being carried forward from fiscal year 2009 for the European third site and are included in the $50.5 million request in fiscal year 2010 for the European capability.

Let me close by saying that this bill responsibly and robustly funds the missile defense programs that Congress has supported for years. It provides additional funding for GMD, Aegis and TPY-2 radars. It provides funding that is strongly aligned with the administration's new plan for missile defense in Europe. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the committee's recommendation.

I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally.

I yield.

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 rise in opposition to the Barrasso amendment.

The mission of the CIA's Center for Climate Change and National Security is fully consistent with that of the intelligence community.

Creating this center does not require any additional CIA resources. It rearranges ongoing programs within the CIA so that existing funding can be more prudently spent.

The work of this center will not divert resources from other missions. It will not divert case officers or the tasking of satellites.

This center will continue in the traditional role of the intelligence community to support policymakers on national security issues related to climate change.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I yield the floor.

I have no opposition to this amendment, nor am I aware of anyone on our side who opposes this. I am prepared for a voice vote.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2566

Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma has proposed an amendment to strip the Defense bill of the earmarks in the O&M appropriations. As I have said previously, the Defense Subcommittee reviews the entire budget and adjusts funds based on that review. Funds in the O&M budget are not reduced with the intent to fund earmarks.

Earmarks in O&M provide additional funds to repair facilities and enhance security on our military bases, augment maintenance efforts, and equip our military members with personal protection devices.

During this debate, the Senator from Oklahoma has spoken about his concerns to provide adequate funding for the National Guard. I share that concern. I would point out that if this amendment is adopted, it would decrease funding in excess of $75 million provided by this subcommittee to National Guard units in nearly 20 States.

I hope my colleagues will vote against it.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, there is no opposition to the amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Senator Baucus's 11,000th Vote

Mr. President, I rise to oppose this amendment which seeks to eliminate funding on the C-17. I am certain the Senate is aware that Vice Chairman Cochran and I proposed and the committee unanimously accepted our recommendation to reallocate $2.5 billion to procure 10 additional C-17s.

Last week, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to defeat the Senator's amendment which would have deleted funding for the C-17 program. I believe the sense of the Senate is very clear. Continuing with the C-17 program is a high priority. It is a critical national security enabler, providing the airlift our forces need for today's fight and for years to come.

I oppose the amendment.

Mr. President, the McCain amendment rests on the assumption that congressional earmarks are for special treatment in awarding these contracts. But DOD's own inspector general concluded that the Department conducts identical oversight on earmarks and items funded in the President's budget. The McCain amendment also eliminates small business set-asides for earmarks. These set-asides benefit minority-owned, women-owned, disabled-veteran-owned businesses.

My amendment applies competitive contracting to earmarks for for- profit entities on the same basis as items in the President's budget, and protects funding for small businesses. The items funded by Congress or the President ought to be awarded using the same rules of the road.

I urge Senators to support my amendment.

The amendment is No. 2623. I call that up.

I ask further reading be dispensed with.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, the McCain amendment purports to save tax dollars by requiring competition for earmarks for all businesses. However, it should be noted that if this amendment passes, small businesses would have to be competed against the big companies; women businesses will have to be competed; business by small Indian companies, Native Americans, will have to be competed, and disabled veterans. We have a choice here.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 2605 be called up.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared by both sides. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.

I fully understand the Senator's concerns and support funding to meet our Nation's requirements for the HMMWV fleet. The HMMWV has proven its value over the years deployed in combat, in training at home and in homeland defense missions. I can assure you that we will carefully consider these factors as the fiscal year 2010 bill is completed.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. President, today, I rise in support of this resolution commemorating the canonization of Father Damien de Veuster, SS.CC, to sainthood.

Joseph De Veuster, was born in Tremolo, Belgium, on January 3, 1840. At the age of 19, he entered the Congregation of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and Mary and took the religious name of Damien.

After his brother fell ill, Damien obtained permission from the Superior General to take his place for a mission in the Hawaiian Islands, although he was not yet an ordained priest. After a six-month boat ride, he arrived in Honolulu on March 19, 1864, and was ordained to the priesthood two months later.

During this time in Hawaii, an outbreak of Hansens' disease, also known as leprosy, occurred. Patients were sent away to the small island of Molokai to prevent the disease from spreading. Several priests took turns coming to Molokai to offer spiritual aid for three months at a time, but Damien chose to never leave, instead sacrificing his own life for those with Hansen's disease.

He worked tirelessly and continuously to turn this remote island into a colony of hope. He offered encouragement and spiritual guidance to those who were less able to help themselves. He built houses, chapels and hospitals and even built coffins and dug graves for those who lost the fight from Hansen's disease.

In 1884, Damien contracted Hansen's disease himself but continued working until months before dying on April 15, 1889. His remains were brought back to Belgium in 1936, and now rest in the crypt of the church of the Congregation of the Sacred Hearts at Louvain, where he first entered religious life.

On April 15, 1969, as a gift from Hawaii, a statue of Father Damien and a statue of King Kamehameha I, were unveiled at the Capitol Rotunda.

He was declared Venerable by Pope Paul VI on July 9, 1977, the first of three steps that lead to sainthood. On June 4, 1995, Pope John Paul II declared him Blessed Damien, and his feast is on May 10, the day he entered Molokai.

In observance of Father Damien de Veuster, SS.CC., I urge my colleagues to support this resolution recognizing his canonization to sainthood by Pope Benedict XVI on October 11, 2009.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Daniel Akaka be added as a cosponsor to this Resolution.

If I may, Mr. President.

This matter has been requested by two Members of the caucus, the National Guard caucus. They would like to say a few words about it. If I may, can we set this aside?

Mr. President, I listened to my leader with great admiration. I wish him to know that I support his action in support of the health reform measures before us.

The leader touched upon two problems. One was that each day in the State of Nevada, 221 men, women, and children will go to bed and the next morning find themselves without health insurance coverage. I believe it should be noted that, as we speak, over 15,000 men, women, and children of the United States will wake up in the morning finding that they have no insurance coverage--15,000 a day. That

means close to half a million every month. This is not acceptable. I don't think we should tolerate this and set it aside.

Mr. President, my leader, the very distinguished Senator from Nevada, brought up the matter of the death panel. It is the responsibility of physicians throughout this land, when confronted with terminal cases, to tell their patients of the condition. They should also notify the patients that as long as they want care and life-sustaining medicine, it will be done. But I believe it is the right of the patients to suggest that they would like to rest.

Three years ago, I lost a wife. We were married for 57 years. It wasn't an easy moment, believe me. One evening--and I have never discussed this publicly before--as I sat near her, she said, ``I have something I would like to discuss with you that is very important.'' She looked at me and said, ``I will be dead in 10 days.'' I said, ``Now, you must be kidding.'' She said, ``No, I have discussed this matter with the doctor. We all know it is terminal. This cancer is beyond control, and I don't wish to continue this agony. I hope you will support me.'' She said, ``I will be OK for a week, but on the seventh day I will go into a coma. During those 7 days, I would like to discuss with you certain things, such as where my funeral services should be held.''

She kept all these details. There was no death panel. What the doctor did was to provide her with comfort--comfort of her emotions, her senses. She passed away happy. She knew that things were going to be done.

I am sorry to see--and it hurts me to see--fellow Americans distort a good aspect of health care and turn it into something murderous. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Mr. President, our leader is a good man.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Will the Senator yield?

I commend the Senator from Pennsylvania for his amendment. I support the intent and the purpose of that amendment. However, I have been advised there are certain technical changes that have been recommended for better acceptance by this body. So if I may ask that the Senator's staff and the staff of the committee get together, I think we can work it out.

I thank the Senator.

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

Mr. President, I would like to advise the Senate that the committee has no objection to the Kaufman amendment and we accept it.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

We support the amendment.

Madam President, on behalf of Senator Byrd, I call up amendment No. 2571 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam President, this amendment has been cleared by both sides, both leaders. It is a good amendment. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be agreed to.

Thank you, Madam President.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I join the distinguished Senator from California in opposing the Barrasso amendment.

The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency recently created the Center for Climate Change and National Security. The mission of this center is fully consistent with the mission of the intelligence community.

The center has three main tasks. As pointed out by the Senator from California, the first is to continue the decades-long program of declassifying imagery for use by the scientific community. Second, the center will assess the plans and intentions of other countries and assist the administration to design verification regimes for any climate change treaties so that policymakers can negotiate from a position of strength. Third, as noted by the Senator from California, this center will assess the national security implications of climate change, which many

believe will be very significant. This will include assessing the national security implications of increased competition for resources, population shifts, water shortages, changes in crop yields, and the spread of climate-sensitive diseases such as malaria.

This center will not work on the science of climate change. That work will be done where it belongs--with the scientific community. This center will continue in the traditional role of the intelligence community to support policymakers on a wide range of foreign policy issues.

Therefore, I join my colleague from California in urging my colleagues to oppose the Barrasso amendment.

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

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

Madam President, I would like to say a few words on a few of the contentious issues before us.

The administration requested $7.4 billion for the Afghanistan security forces fund in fiscal year 2010. This is an increase of $1.8 billion over fiscal year 2009 levels. This is to continue to train and equip the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police.

The committee was informed by officials of the Department of Defense that $1.8 billion of this request would not be spent until fiscal year 2011. I would like to repeat that. This amount will not be spent until 2011. And there was $1.9 billion remaining from the fiscal year 2009 appropriations.

At the same time, the committee was also aware of a validated urgent but unfunded requirement from the Department of Defense for additional all-terrain MRAP vehicles for our troops in Afghanistan, something that the military has been asking for with great urgency.

Recognizing that these funds would not be obligated until fiscal year 2011--the funds I mentioned earlier--and were not required for long lead equipment of infrastructure projects, the committee transferred $900 million from the Afghan security forces fund to the MRAP fund to pay for this urgent requirement.

The redirecting of funds was not an attempt to curtail our efforts to train and equip the Afghan security forces. It was solely based on the Department's ability to execute the required resources during fiscal year 2010 and the urgent unfunded and validated requirement to procure additional all-terrain MRAPs for our troops in Afghanistan.

There is a tremendous amount of debate in both the Halls of Congress and the Pentagon over the size of the Afghan security forces--how fast they can be trained, equipped, and executing missions independent of coalition forces.

While many would like to grow the Afghan security forces beyond the current plan, the Department of Defense has not been able to say that they can absorb additional resources in fiscal year 2010 or that they can source additional trainers to reach these new levels. This is a situation where, yes, we need the money, but we cannot spend it. We want you to appropriate it so we can leave it in the bank. That is a hell of a way to run the government.

Since 2005, Congress has appropriated nearly $19 billion for the training and equipping of the Afghan security forces. These funds have greatly increased over the years, starting from $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2005 to $5.6 billion in fiscal year 2009 to $7.4 billion in fiscal year 2010.

Of the $5.6 billion appropriated in the last fiscal year, nearly $1.9 billion remains unobligated, and the Department of Defense does not anticipate obligating these funds until July of 2010.

The $7.4 billion fiscal year 2010 request for the Afghan security forces fund is projected to obligate $5.6 billion in fiscal year 2010 and $1.8 billion in the next fiscal year, 2011.

The Afghan security forces fund is a 2-year funding account to enable long lead equipment procurement and infrastructure projects that obligate over a 2-year period. The funds transferred from the Afghan security forces trust fund to meet the urgent operational requirement of additional all-terrain MRAPs for Afghanistan were taken from sustainment requirements of the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police which would have been obligated in fiscal year 2011 and do not require long lead appropriations. We took money they did not need or can use.

Areas funded through the sustainment program include fuels, salary, incentive pay, clothing, individual equipment, rental equipment--all of which do not require long lead time. Therefore, the fiscal year 2010 sustainment request for the Afghan National Army is a 45-percent increase over 2009 and a 108-percent increase over fiscal year 2009 for the Afghan National Police.

Even with the decrease in this fund, there is substantial flexibility and resources in the Afghan security forces fund to meet unanticipated requirements of the security forces and to expedite the growth of the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police.

Madam President, I decided to share these numbers with my colleagues to make certain they know the committee has acted on this very carefully. When we were convinced that the Department of Defense could not use that money, we decided to use it for some other more urgent purpose.

I should point out once again this bill was passed by the committee, made up of Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, by a vote of 30 to 0. Unanimous.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, at this moment--and I repeat, at this moment--there are 10 amendments ready for voting--10. I have been advised that most of them will require rollcall votes. So may I advise my colleagues to prepare themselves for a long evening.

In addition to that, there are 10 other amendments that we are in the process of discussing and negotiating which may require rollcall votes. So this may be a long night.

The leadership has advised me that voting should begin in about 15 minutes, at 5:30. Since we have some time, and in anticipation that one of the amendments would be the one from the Senator from Oklahoma, I wish to say a few words about that.

Amendment No. 2569

Madam President, I rise to oppose the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma which seeks to increase the operation and maintenance funding by $294 million in the Department of Defense bill by reducing the funds available for research and development activities by that same amount. I understand the Senator incorrectly assumes that the operation and maintenance account is underfunded due to a change in current year inflation.

Economic recovery means that projected inflation is now higher than anticipated a few months ago. My colleague is correct that inflation assumptions have changed. However, the budget adjustment the Senator finds objectionable does not only correct for the current year inflation; in fact, the committee reviews the historical price growth embedded in the budget baseline. Due to the recession, inflation in fiscal years 2008 and 2009 was below the levels built into the budget. Therefore, the fiscal year 2010 budget base was inflated over actual experience. The bill before us adjusts for that baseline error.

The operation and maintenance title is fully funded to meet the Department's needs. There is no shortage. Let me repeat that: The O&M account--or the operation and maintenance account--is fully funded. The committee is deeply concerned that the critical operational needs of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are financed. We want to be certain that every member has the equipment, gear, training and support they need. The bill meets these needs. And we fully fund family support programs, base operations, and major equipment maintenance.

The proposed amendment would add $294 million in unneeded funds, an action that could promote waste and expenditures on low priority programs. I note the amendment does not specify what program is underfunded or would benefit from this transfer. This amendment would move funds for unidentified purposes, which undermines the careful program-by-program review which the committee accomplished.

On the other hand, it unduly penalizes the resource and development activities of the Department. The R&D title is already below the President's requested funding level. Research and development is the seed corn for the future. It is the basis of all the technological improvements that have proved invaluable in making our fighting forces the most capable in the world. This blunt axe approach to cut funds and undermine the future is uninformed, unexplained, and untargeted. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose this measure.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I have been advised that the statement I made that we may begin voting at 5:30 has slightly changed. We will now begin voting about 6 o'clock.

So may I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Georgia for presenting his amendment. I am pleased to advise him that Senator Cochran and I have discussed this matter. We would like to see this passed. We agree with the Senator.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 consider the following list of amendments that I will identify, if not pending, then once this agreement is entered, the amendment be considered called up for consideration; and that the amendments be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table en bloc; that no amendments be in order to the amendments included in this agreement; further, that if there are modifications to any of the listed amendments, then the amendment be modified and agreed to, as modified: Nos. 2563, 2585, 2617, 2559, 2562, 2568, 2614, and 2615; and further that amendment No. 2569 be withdrawn.

I thank you, Mr. President.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I thank the Senator from South Carolina for his comments. I assure him that the reductions to the program were taken without prejudice, and the committee supports providing this capable series of rifles to Special Operations Command. His points on the importance of this program will be fully and carefully considered when this issue is addressed in conference on this bill.

tactical wheeled vehicle funding

I am pleased to engage the senior Senator from Texas in a colloquy.

I would say to the Senator from Texas that I know she is greatly interested in how the Army's tactical wheeled vehicle budget is spent. I hope that we will be informed by the GAO review that she has requested, and I can pledge that the subcommittee will review this issue thoroughly as we go forward.

The gentleman is correct. The bill before the Senate provides $104.8 million for research, development, testing and evaluation of ballistic missile defense technology, which is the appropriate account for NCADE funding.

Under the Senate bill, the MDA could continue to work on this interesting technology.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 1, 2009, at 10:30 a.m., in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 1, 2009, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Afghanistan's Impact on Pakistan.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 1, 2009, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Violence against Women: Global Costs and Consequences.''

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 October 1, 2009, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 1, 2009, at 9:30 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 1, 2009, at 2:30 p.m.