Floor Statements

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. President, this is, obviously, an important vote that is coming up. I repeat, I am not opposed in principle to bringing up the Defense bill and debating it, amending it, and voting on it. I am not opposed to having a full and informed debate on whether to repeal don't ask, don't tell and then allowing the Senate to legislate. What I am opposed to is bringing up the Defense bill now before the Defense Department has completed its survey because we need to know the views of the men and women who are serving in the military in uniform. Give them a chance to tell us their views. Whether you agree or disagree with the policy, whether you want to keep it or repeal it, the Senate should not be forced to make this decision now before we have heard from our troops. We have asked for their views, and we should wait to hear from them. All four service chiefs have said the same thing: Let's conduct the survey, let's get it done and then act on whether to repeal or not repeal.

There is one other aspect. This is a blatant political ploy in order to try to galvanize the political base of the other side, which is facing a losing election. That is why the majority leader said we would take up don't ask, don't tell, take up the DREAM Act, and then take up the issue of secret holds and then address the other issues after the election. I wonder why the majority leader would have those priorities--in other words, take up those that would be politically beneficial, galvanize his political base as far as the Hispanic community is concerned and the gay and lesbian community, and then take up the other issues after--after--the election is over in lameduck session.

This majority leader has filled up the tree and has not allowed debate 40 times--40 times--more than all the other majority leaders preceding him. Last year, the hate crimes bill was arranged in such a way that there were not amendments that could be proposed by my side of the aisle.

So let's vote against cloture. Let's sit down and try to reach some kind of an agreement. Let the men and women in the military be heard from. Let their leaders go to their men and women who are serving and tell them we have heard their input before we make this legislative change and stop the cynical manipulation of the men and women in the military in order to get votes on November 2.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, how much time do I have?

I just wish to emphasize again the statements of the service chiefs.

GEN George Casey:

I remain convinced that it is critically important to get a

better understanding of where our Soldiers and Families are

on this issue, and what the impacts on readiness and unit

cohesion might be, so that I can provide informed military

advice to the President and the Congress. I also believe that

repealing the law before the completion of the review will be

seen by the men and women of the Army as a reversal of our

commitment to hear their views before moving forward.

Admiral Roughead:

My concern is that legislative changes at this point,

regardless of the precise language used, may cause confusion

on the status of the law in the Fleet and disrupt the review

process itself by leading Sailors to question whether their

input matters.

General Conway:

I encourage the Congress to let the process the Secretary

of Defense created to run its course.

General Schwartz:

I believe it is important, a matter of keeping faith with

those currently serving in the Armed Forces, that the

Secretary of Defense commissioned review be completed before

there is any legislation to repeal the Don't Ask, Don't Tell

law.

Let's listen to the people we place in charge of the men and women in the military. This is not the time to move forward on this issue, particularly with a political campaign at its highest.

I hope my colleagues will oppose the cloture vote and let's hear a statement in favor of the men and women serving in the military.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Could I make a couple of comments? One is, one of the things that has disappeared that I saw in the first years I was here in the Senate is the two leaders sitting down and perhaps coming to informal agreements that are then put into unanimous consent agreements to move forward.

The other aspect of this I wonder if my colleagues would care to comment on. One of the reasons why we have these--the majority leader comes forward, as I believe he has 40 times, brings up a bill and then immediately fills up the tree--and to the uninitiated, obviously that means there will be no other amendments allowed through that kind of parliamentary procedure. A lot of times that is read by the Members saying, hey, there is going to be an amendment up that I do not want to have to vote on. I do not want to have to vote on it. So fill up the tree, have no other amendments allowed to be voted on.

It seems to me that we should have the courage to go ahead and vote. Time after time, when I have seen basically a shutout from amendments, I have said, look, I will agree to a time agreement. I am not going to filibuster it. Just give us 15 minutes either side and vote on it. But they do not want to take tough votes. I am not going to call it cowardice, but I cannot call it courage, that people will prevail and say, hey, let's fill up the tree so we can only get this done and we will not have to take a tough vote on whatever the issue is that seems to be attracting the attention of the American people.

I say to my colleague from New Hampshire, who will not be with us next January----

I certainly do not in any way indicate that there is any physical ailment that will cause you not to be a Member of the Senate next January.

If the Senator from New Hampshire could provide us with the benefit of his experience in both the House and the Senate, and also maybe he would give us at some point his view of what we need to do to fix this gridlock we have over the economy. He has done it on numerous occasions, but it comes to my mind that perhaps the Senator from New Hampshire at some time would take an hour on the floor and say: Here is what I think we need to do. I think it would be valuable. I don't think there is anybody in the Senate today who has a better grasp for the budgetary issues we have to grapple with as we face an unprecedented situation of debt and deficit.

Perhaps after this election, it may be possible for us to sit down and be included in the agenda of the Senate. That is one of the things that has been a big change. It used to be that at least the majority leader, whichever party was in the majority, would come over and say: Here is our agenda. What is your agenda? What is your input? What do you want to see happen? Most of the time nowadays, we hear what is going to happen either through reading it in the media or when the majority leader comes to the floor and says: Here is what we will take up next. It does not lead to comity.

Doesn't it send a message to people who are having their budgets squeezed, having to make the most difficult decisions about their budget, that this body will function and continue to appropriate money for our functions without a budget of our own? What kind of a signal does that send to the American people? Doesn't that contribute to the disconnect and the frustration Americans feel and give rise to the tea party, which has had a seismic effect on the political landscape?

One of the first decisions every family has to make is what is the budget, what are they going to be able to spend. We will be going out of session sometime here before the election without even a cursory effort at a budget.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Is it the understanding of the Senator from South Carolina that we would be taking up the DREAM Act which, if going through the regular process, would go to the Judiciary Committee, and the don't ask, don't tell issue and perhaps something about secret holds, and then go off of the bill until after the elections in a very constrictive timeframe of a lameduck session?

What is the Senator's view about what the priorities of the leadership are? Is it political? Why else would we take up only certain amendments and then move off a bill that would then resume possibly for some truncated period after the election? What is that all about?

If we do address the issue on the Defense authorization bill or if we were addressing the issue, would it be more appropriate to assess the impact on battle effectiveness and morale on the men and women serving and then arrive at a decision as to whether that legislation or any other legislation, although this is very important legislation, should be repealed? Instead, isn't it true the construct of the way it went through the Armed Services Committee is that the three individuals who support repeal--the President, who made a political promise; the Secretary of Defense, whom we admire; and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--will make a determination as to whether the study has been completed sufficiently to ensure the repeal of don't ask, don't tell without difficulty as opposed to taking a survey, finding out about the impact on morale and battle readiness and then make a determination?

Also, according to this process set up in the Armed Services Committee, the four service chiefs--Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force--are left out of the decisionmaking. Why? Because they have called for exactly what I was just describing, which is a study to assess the impact on morale and effectiveness prior to repeal. In other words, in this instance, the fix is in.

One more question: The issue is the proposal to include the so-called DREAM Act. I think every Member of Congress, every American citizen has some sympathy for individuals who were brought to this country without making the decision to do so, not forgetting that the people who brought them to this country were breaking our laws when they did so. Isn't it also true that if we address the DREAM Act or other parts of comprehensive immigration reform before securing the borders, then 1, 2, 5, 10 years from now we will be faced with another generation of young people who were brought here against their will who have a compelling story to tell?

In other words, isn't the moral of this story--to harken back to the 1980s--under our beloved Ronald Reagan we gave amnesty to a couple million people, and they said they would secure the borders, and we ended up with 12 million people who were here illegally? So isn't that the situation we all want to remedy, but we want to make sure we do not have to remedy it again?

Mr. President, I will be brief because I know there will be a lot more debate tomorrow.

The distinguished chairman just mentioned a number of authorized programs that sound pretty good. They were put in without debate, discussion or amendments. He also left out several that might be of interest to taxpayers, which may be the reason why we see such anger about the kind of spending--out-of-control spending and unnecessary spending.

Here is $1 million for foreign language correlation and translation; $3 million for plant-based vaccine development; $4.5 million for decision and energy reduction tool. The list goes on and on. Here is $5 million for operator driving simulator; $1 million for Permafrost Tunnel; $2.5 million for body temperature conditioner.

All of these, in the eyes of the chairman, are more important than taking care of our allies and cementing success in our operations in Iraq, which was a result of the surge which the chairman, of course, adamantly opposed.

Here is $7.6 million for a Quiet Propulsion Load House; $3 million for tribology research. The list goes on and on: $8 million for a physical fitness center.

By the way, none of these were requested by the Department of Defense.

So we will be going into this some more tomorrow, and we will request an earmark for where they went--one of the key elements of it. None of it is completed. All of those earmarks are designated for certain places and certain manufacturers. It is something the people of this country, again, steadfastly are in opposition to.

I was interested to hear the chairman talk about amendments being allowed and that there will be debate and discussion. That is not the message we got through the media, which the majority leader didn't share with us. My understanding is that we are going to take up three issues. He is going to fill up the tree, which means no other amendments will be allowed. The issues will be the secret holds, the DREAM Act, and, of course, don't ask, don't tell. I hope the chairman is accurate here because there are many issues that many Americans would feel are very important: treatment of terrorists, Guantanamo Bay, and so many other issues that affect the readiness of the men and women and their training and ability, as opposed to the DREAM Act and a repeal of don't ask, don't tell.

Let me point out again that this issue is not on don't ask, don't tell, not an assessment of the effect on the readiness and morale of the men and women in the military. This language is a repeal, then signed onto by the President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. One wonders, what about the Chief of Staff of the Army? What about the Chief of Naval Operations, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, all of whom have objected to this provision because it is being railroaded through without a proper assessment on the morale and effectiveness of our military?

I read from the bill itself that this Secretary's memorandum says:

. . . determine any impacts to military readiness, military

effectiveness, unit cohesion [et cetera] that may result from

repeal of the law.

That may result from the repeal of the law. Every provision says that the law will be repealed if the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff sign off on a report that doesn't assess the effect on morale and readiness of the men and women in the military. It would only assess impacts of repeal. That is not right. We are in two wars. Should we not assess the impact on the readiness, the morale, and effectiveness of the men and women who are in harm's way, who would be affected by the repeal of don't ask, don't tell? Should we not have that assessment?

What the chairman has done and what the majority of the Democrats have done is in blatant disregard for the morale, effectiveness, recruitment, and retention of the men and women serving in the military today. Why couldn't we have done what our service chiefs want and what our senior enlisted people want, and that is an assessment of battle effectiveness and morale regarding a repeal of it, and then decide whether to repeal don't ask, don't tell?

This is really a remarkable act on the part of the Democrats because this is a political issue, just as the DREAM Act is a political issue. It is a political issue. I understand the season. I understand it is not that far between now and the elections. But to use the Defense bill, which has to do with defending our national security interests when we are in two wars, to pursue a social agenda and legislative agenda to galvanize voting blocks I think is reprehensible.

We will be talking a lot about this in the next day or so. I appeal to the American people, who understand what we are about here.

I wish to return to the DREAM Act for another minute. If we enact any legislation that provides people with citizenship in this country without securing our borders, then we have placed ourselves in a situation where we will have more people in this country illegally and we will have to address that issue again. It is no longer a border issue; it is a national security issue. The drug cartels and the human smugglers have now posed a threat to our Nation's security. That is why our Secretary of State, just a couple weeks ago, said the situation in Mexico was comparable to that of Colombia in the 1980s, when they had an active insurgency called the FARC.

To use the Defense authorization bill as a vehicle to enact legislation, which there would be numerous amendments to, there would be hours and hours of debate--by the way, the amendment I proposed about 10 years ago was a rifle shot on a specific issue. This is, of course, a major piece of legislation that affects at least, I am told, 800,000 people who are living in this country illegally.

I hope that we will return to the days I remember in the past when we had unlimited amendments, unlimited debate, and that we move forward in a bipartisan fashion on this issue. Unfortunately, the politicization of this very important legislation that affects our ability to fight and win wars is being compromised for short-term political purposes.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Glen MacDonald, a military legislative fellow in Senator Vitter's office, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the debate on S. 3454, the National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. President, I reserve the right to object, and I will object.

Mr. President, if I understood the majority leader's words, in a rather unusual departure from anything I have ever seen in the Senate, if he receives sufficient votes to proceed to the bill, he would take up certain amendments that are on his agenda, and then, in lameduck session, we might consider other amendments.

Coincidentally, the amendments the majority leader would agree to would be two of them that are totally unrelated to national defense. One is the DREAM Act and the other is secret holds, as I understand it. Then other amendments of importance, which are relevant, which those of us on this side of the aisle have, which are important, maybe we would take them up, under certain circumstances, in a lameduck session.

Yes.

So, again, I say to the majority leader, you are going to ask Members on this side to proceed to the bill without us knowing what amendments you are going to allow and those amendments that may be considered in a lameduck session. It is well known that the DREAM Act is also one of the amendments the Senator from Nevada, the majority leader, has said will be part of the prelameduck session, which happens to be preelection, which happens not to have a thing to do with our Nation's defense. Other amendments that may be directly related to national defense will not be allowed by the majority leader, which is his right, to fill up the tree, as he did last year after we spent a week on the hate crimes bill, which had nothing to do with our Nation's defense. I ask the majority leader to draw a conclusion or surmise that perhaps this has everything to do with elections and nothing to do with national defense.

Mr. President, I will not take up the time of the majority leader--I have a statement I will present at this time--except to say again that this is a transparent attempt to win an election. That is what this is all about. Why would we want to put the DREAM Act first before the election? Why not after we come back? Why not take up the secret holds after we come back? And, of course, the don't ask, don't tell issue is one of significant importance to the American people.

Last year, after spending a week on hate crimes--which, again, had nothing to do with this Nation's defense--the majority leader, with the agreement of the committee chairman, filed cloture and cut off debate and discussion of amendments that many of us felt were important.

I have been around this body for a number of years. I have never seen such politicization of our Nation's security as we are seeing in this process we are following. This politicization that has taken place over the last 2 years is very unfortunate. For as long as I have been privileged to be a Member of this body, the Senate has done a good job of keeping the National Defense Authorization Act out of partisan political fights that have little or nothing to do with the U.S. military, the brave men and women serving in it, and our national defense programs more broadly. There has even been a healthy degree of bipartisan cooperation to prevent items that are unrelated to our national defense from crowding out time for debate and amendments germane to our national security priorities. Sure, we have had fights over this legislation in the past, and at times they have been pretty heated. But they were debates overwhelmingly focused on national defense. And whatever our differences we had through that process, we came together at the end of the day to keep this legislation focused on our national defense and all who ensure it.

What troubles me is how far off course we have gotten over the past 2 years. Under this majority leader and this chairman, we have witnessed the unfortunate and growing politicization of the National Defense Authorization Act. Time to offer and debate important defense-related amendments to this bill on the floor is being limited or cut off so that the majority leader can push through highly political legislation that has little or nothing to do with national defense--legislation that would never be referred to the Armed Services Committee if it were introduced independently.

The Hate Crimes Act would never have been referred to the Senate Armed Services Committee. The DREAM Act would never have been referred to the Senate Armed Services Committee.

This is turning legislation related to our national defense and military preparedness into a vehicle to force a partisan agenda through the Senate, often on a party-line vote. And their desperation, because they see the November 2 elections coming up, is palpable. What is worse, the majority leader is pushing this controversial agenda under the cover of supporting our troops, knowing that the National Defense Authorization Act is a must-pass bill and whatever else is in it will inevitably become law as a result.

Last year it was legislation on hate crimes. I am not saying this is not an important issue or an issue that the Senate should not have taken up and debated in due time. But hate crimes legislation has nothing to do with our national defense. Of course, the majority and the committee chairman will always get creative on how to interpret ``national defense.'' But the plain fact is, if hate crimes legislation were introduced independently, it would be referred to the Judiciary Committee, not the Armed Services Committee. Yet the majority leader and the committee chairman put that legislation onto the Defense Authorization Act last year, promptly eliminating the ability to offer amendments. Then the Senate spent a week locked in debate over legislation that had nothing to do with national defense--precious time that should have been spent discussing legislation that actually pertained to our military priorities.

Things are only getting worse this year. We learned on Monday that before we go home for this election cycle, there will be no debate at all on the Defense authorization bill, except for what we are told--the majority leader just said he has not decided--but we are told there will be no debate at all on the Defense authorization bill except for three amendments handpicked by the majority leader for narrow political reasons 2 months before an election.

One of those amendments will be on banning the use of so-called secret holds. Another will be, we are told, on the DREAM Act which allows the children of immigrants who entered the country illegally to become U.S. citizens.

Again, I am not saying the Senate should not consider these pieces of legislation, but neither of them would be taken up independently in the Armed Services Committee because they have nothing to do with national defense. The majority leader has no business putting these two amendments on the National Defense Authorization Act--and certainly not two of only three amendments that will even get voted on--at a time when our military is engaged in two wars overseas and when numerous defense issues demand the Senate's time.

That leads us to an amendment to strike the provision in the bill that would repeal the don't ask, don't tell law as the only other issue the Senate will be able to debate and vote on. Unlike the other issues I have mentioned, a repeal of don't ask, don't tell, while controversial, is related to the National Defense Authorization Act. It is an issue that belongs in the Armed Services Committee. The problem is the truncated process and partisan manner in which the majority is forcing through a de facto repeal of a longstanding law that may have significant ramifications for our military force during a time of two wars, all to fulfill a campaign promise made by President Obama in 2008, barely 2 months before the election.

I want to make one thing very clear: I do not oppose or support the repeal of don't ask, don't tell at this time. I do oppose taking legislative action prior to the completion of a real and thorough review of the law. A complete survey to evaluate the impact of repeal on the men and women serving in our military should be concluded before moving forward. When the Senate does consider taking legislative action, that action should be based on the survey of our men and women in uniform, and their leaders.

Unfortunately and inexplicably, the majority is following an opposite approach. It is pushing for a vote on the don't ask, don't tell law before the Defense Department has concluded its survey of the opinions of our force on an important matter that will directly affect them and their families. The majority is doing this in complete disregard of the views of our men and women in uniform, as well as our four service chiefs--the heads of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines--who are responsible for the battlefield effectiveness of their services. All four of the military leaders wrote letters encouraging Congress to wait until the completion of the survey of the force before taking any legislative action on don't ask, don't tell. Their opinions have been disregarded thus far, and it seems that the chairman and the majority leader do not care about their views either.

The majority will say this amendment does not actually repeal don't ask, don't tell; it merely authorizes its repeal pending a certification from the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that a repeal would not harm military effectiveness. Just those three officials--not the four service chiefs or Congress, for that matter. This is a legislative gimmick and a distinction without a difference.

In reality, the majority is sending a signal to our men and women in uniform that we will not wait to hear their views or give them any due consideration once the Pentagon survey is finished. Instead, the Senate will turn its responsibility to legislate on this important matter over to three officials who have already publicly stated their support for repealing don't ask, don't tell. It is a blatant message of disrespect to our men and women in uniform that Congress is unwilling to even wait to hear what the force has to

say on this important matter before pushing ahead with a controversial political vote less than 2 months before an election.

That is why I am opposed to debating and amending the National Defense Authorization Act at this time. I feel very strongly that we should wait--actually wait--and not take any action on this controversial issue until we hear from our troops on what they think the impact of repeal would be. Then the Senate should take time to consider their views before deciding what we think is the best course of action. The only rationale for doing this now is a transparently partisan and political one.

After limited debate on only three amendments, two of which are not related to our national defense, the majority leader will then apparently push for a final vote on this legislation--or delay until the lameduck session--that also contains a controversial provision permitting abortions in military facilities, an irresponsible cut to the Iraqi security forces, and $2.8 billion in porkbarrel earmarks that the President did not request and the military says it does not need. There will be no chance to debate these or other defense-related issues.

The effect of all of this is that the majority leader is turning legislation on our national defense into a political football. Debate is limited and unrelated. Politically controversial amendments are crowding out our limited time to debate actual military and defense- related legislation. This is a corruption of the principles and procedures of the Senate if there ever was one, and it disrespects the longstanding traditions of the Senate. It is only making it more likely that the National Defense Authorization Act will one day go the way of so many other authorizations bills, which is to say nowhere.

This kind of transparent politicization of our national defense should anger every Member of this body--Democrats and Republicans. The men and women of our Armed Forces deserve better, and we should demand better.

I regret to see that the long-respected and revered Senate Armed Services Committee has evolved into a forum for a social agenda of the liberal left of the Senate. I will do everything in my power, if we regain the majority, to see that the Senate Armed Services Committee returns to the tradition of addressing only those issues that are totally related to the defense of this Nation.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I would like to take a moment today to recognize an extraordinary soldier and son of Arizona who made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of our Nation. SGT Martin Anthony Lugo selflessly gave his life on the battlefield in Afghanistan on August 19, 2010, while serving his sixth, yes his sixth, deployment in the war on terror. Sergeant Lugo was killed while leading his Rangers in a fierce firefight that also claimed the lives of over a dozen Taliban fighters.

Sergeant Lugo's service to his country began after his graduation from high school in Tucson, AZ. He soon found himself in the Army recruiter's office and enlisted as an infantryman in September 2004. After distinguishing himself throughout basic training and the basic airborne course, he was assigned to the Ranger Selection and Training Program at Fort Benning, GA. Upon graduation in April 2005, he was assigned to Company C, 1st Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment. Over the next 5 years, he would serve as an ammunition handler, automatic rifleman, team leader, and squad leader. During this time, he would deploy twice to Iraq and four times to Afghanistan.

In addition to graduating from the U.S. Army Ranger course and earning

his Ranger Tab, Sergeant Lugo was also a graduate of the warrior leader course and the reconnaissance and surveillance leader course. He has been honored with the Army Commendation Medal and the Army Good Conduct Medal, in addition to various unit and campaign awards. Sadly, he was posthumously awarded the Bronze Star, Meritorious Service Medal, and Purple Heart.

``Rangers Lead the Way!'' has long been the motto of the Army Rangers, and Sergeant Lugo clearly took this to heart. The fact that this exceptional Ranger spent his best years constantly deployed to a combat zone should serve as an example to all Americans of the selflessness and dedication of our young men and women in uniform. Words can do little to recognize the true sacrifice required of a young man in his prime to answer the call when asked to deploy six times in 6 years.

I am truly saddened that the lives of men like Martin Lugo are too often honored only in their deaths. Nonetheless, it is a far greater sin to fail to recognize them at all. I call on my colleagues to join me today in honoring the life and service of Sergeant Lugo, and in expressing my sincerest condolences to his mother Maria Marin; his father Martin Lugo; his stepfather Esteban Oropeza; his sister Leslie Bencic; and his brother-in-law Christopher Bencic.

Reserving the right to object, and I do so with some reluctance, I remind my colleagues that last year we took up the consideration of the Defense authorization bill without warning. The distinguished chairman of the committee introduced a hate crimes bill which had no business on the Defense authorization bill, filled up the tree, and then, of course, we spent a great amount of time on hate crimes.

I have only been a member of this committee since 1987. I have never seen what the chairman of the committee did last year by bringing forth a totally irrelevant and very controversial issue and putting it on the Defense authorization bill. We spent weeks on that when we should have been spending time on defending this Nation. It was a betrayal of the men and women who are serving this country.

I am not going to allow us to move forward, and I will be discussing with my leaders and the 41 Members of this side of the aisle as to whether we are going to move forward with a bill that contains the don't ask, don't tell policy repeal before--before--a meaningful survey of the impact on battle effectiveness and morale of the men and women who are serving this Nation in uniform.

It is, again, the chairman of the committee and the majority leader and the other side moving forward with a social agenda on legislation that was intended to ensure this Nation's security.

Along with it, abortion now is going to be performed in military hospitals for the first time in a long time. There is going to be a transparency. The distinguished chairman and his staff, without informing me or anybody else, put in $1 billion worth of porkbarrel projects instead of the $1 billion the administration asked for us to aid Iraq as we are finally leaving.

It is a terrible piece of legislation, ramrodded through. My greatest concern, of course, is about repeal of don't ask, don't tell without any survey being done to find out the battle effectiveness and morale, which we were assured would take place before the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. It is purely a political promise on the part of the President of the United States and the Members on the other side of the aisle, and it is disgraceful to have it on this legislation without a survey being done about our battle effectiveness and the morale of the men and women in the military from whom I am hearing all the time.

Therefore, I object.

Mr. President, I will respond again. Last year, the Senator from Michigan did not allow exactly what he is espousing now. He brought up hate crimes and filled the tree so that even if the Senator from Arizona wanted to have an amendment on it, I could not do it. The hate crimes bill had nothing to do with national defense. It had everything to do with the social agenda of the chairman of the committee.

What we have done is, we have eroded the confidence of Members on this side of the aisle as to what the agenda is going to be.

Perhaps the Senator from Michigan can tell me what hate crimes had to do with the defense of this Nation. It had everything to do with his social agenda. I object.

Mr. President, I can guarantee that we would not fill up the tree the way the Senator from Michigan did last year and would probably do again this year in violation of what I believe is what the Senate should be all about--amending on different legislative proposals that are before the Senate instead of filling up the tree and not allowing amending of the bill, despite what the chairman says had something to do with national defense.

Hate crimes? Really? Then that means that everything in the social agenda of the Senator from Michigan has to do with the men and women who are serving in the military. I object.

Madam President, I won't repeat myself over and over. The fact is, last year, the Senator from Michigan brought up hate crimes, filled up the tree, and we spent almost all of the first 2 weeks debating hate crimes, which had nothing to do with the purpose and mission of the Senate Armed Services Committee. It is the first time I have ever seen such a thing happen. I am not going to let it happen again if I have anything to say about it.

As I have said to the Senator from Michigan, I will talk to our leadership and our caucus and all the Members over on this side of the aisle, and when we get back a decision will be made as to whether we will object to the motion to proceed. In the meantime, I object.

The Senator from Arizona is saying that the Senator from Michigan filled up the tree; did he not? Was the tree filled up? You are the chairman of the committee.

My response is did you prevent the tree from being filled?

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a short colloquy with my colleague from New York.

Madam President, my understanding, I say to my colleague from New York, is this provides for 1,000 new Border Patrol agents; is that correct?

One-hundred ICE, $39 million for Customs and Border Protection, 250 new Customs and Border Patrol agents you mentioned, communications equipment, money to deploy forward operating bases. I wish to go over it again with my colleague.

A Federal law enforcement training center, additional funding for the Department of Justice.

Anyway, the reason I mention this is because I think these are significant. It comes to a total of about $600 million; is that correct?

I thank my colleague. I think this is significant legislation. I ask the Senator if he would amend his request to include the adoption of three amendments. Those amendments are Nos. 4590, 4591, and 4592. They are: $200 million for Operation Streamline, which is a program that charges those individuals who have crossed the border illegally with a petty crime or misdemeanor with jail time. This has proved to be a great deterrent for repeat crossers; $68 million additional for the Customs inspectors and the other third would be $20 million for the Law Enforcement Support Center which helps the Federal Government, States, and localities identify those individuals who are here illegally and also determines their status regarding eligibility.

If I may mention to my colleague, I am not complaining about these provisions. I would like to point out that Operation Streamline on the border has been a very effective tool as disincentives to repeat crossers. I hope that either in this legislation the Senator from New York would consider it and, of course, we need more Customs inspectors.

The Law Enforcement Support Center is to identify individuals because right now they are overtaxed, as we know, with the number of illegals, how to identify them and to determine their status.

These three amendments I would obviously pay for out of the stimulus package.

My question to my colleague from New York, I understand he is paying for them--maybe he can elaborate--for these provisions by increasing fees or taxes on companies that issue or need H-1B visas and those companies that have less than 50 percent of their employees as American citizens; is that correct?

Would the Senator describe that.

I thank my colleague. Again, I ask if the Senator from New York would amend his request to include the adoption of those three Kyl-McCain amendments.

I think my colleague may have been referring, when we are talking about the law enforcement support center provision that says U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement salaries and expenses, maybe that is the area that he is referring to that falls under----

The stimulus money. I would remind my colleague that just this morning he voted to use $1.5 billion in stimulus funds for the DOE Loan Guarantee Program. But that is a subject of a different discussion.

Let me just say again about Operation Streamline that I would invite my colleague from New York to come and see one of these facilities and talk to our people down at the border. One of the problems, as you know, is we have had this catch and release, or even catch and take to another part of the United States and put them across the border. So we seem to have these repeat crossers. The experience that we have had, and the people down there will tell you about, is keeping these people incarcerated for a period of time--and it isn't just everybody who comes across, it is somebody who has committed a petty crime, a misdemeanor, et cetera--we have found those individuals do not return or are much less likely to do so.

So I say to the Senator from New York, there is no fence money in here, and we would have liked to have seen that. We need to complete and reinforce the fence. We want 3,000 officers down on the border, but the bill has 1,200, which is certainly a major step forward. And there is 1,000 Border Patrol. We think we need as many as 3,000, as I mentioned.

But I think this $600 million is important. I think it is going to a lot of the right purposes. We will fight some more on these three additional amendments I am talking about. While I appreciate the addition of UAVs, we need more surveillance capability on the border and, obviously, in my view, we need to finish the fences. But this is a step forward, so I would ask unanimous consent on behalf of myself and Senator Kyl to be added as cosponsors. This will move forward our 10- point plan we have put forward to get our border secured.

Reserving the right to object--I will not object--I wish to thank the Senator from New York and those on the other side for taking a significant step forward. I believe we have a lot more to do, but this will contribute to our effort to get our border secured. And we will be continuing to fight for all of the provisions Senator Kyl and I have put forward, but I thank my colleague for his cooperation in sending some $60 million to help our border get secured, and at this time, it is not. But I think this is movement in the right direction. I thank my colleague.

Mr. President, no Senator has ever loved the institution of the U.S. Senate more than Senator Robert Byrd. I firmly believe that. He truly believed that the upper Chamber of Congress was the greatest deliberative body on Earth and he always strived to preserve its traditions and history for the generations to come as well as being the Senate's foremost instructor on Senate procedure and process.

I was able to be a ``student'' of Senator Byrd's instruction when we worked together in 2005 to preserve Senate rule XXII, commonly known as the ``filibuster.'' Senator Byrd joined with me, along with six other Republican Senators and six Democrat Senators to form what became the ``Gang of 14.'' During the meetings between these 14 Members, which were often held in my office, I fondly recall the silence that would overcome the room when Senator Byrd spoke about the history of the filibuster and the rights of the minority in the Senate. It is not often that 13 members of the Senate are quiet for any given period of time. But Senator Byrd's stature and intellect brought the room to a standstill.

Senator Byrd is remembered for being a strong majority leader and minority leader for his party. But as he reminded all of us during those meetings in my office, when he served as majority leader during President Reagan's time in office, Senator Byrd did not lead his Democratic caucus to filibuster any of President Reagan's judicial nominees. That was a different time with different leaders, but Senator Byrd's actions reflect his sincere desire for statesmanship and his respect for the President's nominees. His speech on the Senate floor in 2005 regarding the filibuster reflected this desire when he said:

I rise today to make a request of my fellow Senators. In so

doing, I reach out to all Senators on both sides of the

aisle, respectful of the institution of the Senate and of the

opinions of all Senators, respectful of the institution of

the Presidency as well. I ask each Senator to pause for a

moment and reflect seriously on the role of the Senate as it

has existed now for 217 years, and on the role that it will

play in the future if the so-called nuclear option or the so-

called constitutional option--one in the same--is invoked. I

implore Senators to step back--step back, step back, step

back--from the precipice. Step back away from the cameras and

the commentators and contemplate the circumstances in which

we find ourselves. Things are not right, and the American

people know that things are not right. The political

discourse in our country has become so distorted, so

unpleasant, so strident, so unbelievable . . .

He was not only a leader in 2005 against removing the judicial filibuster rule, he was a life-long leader in the Senate against allowing Senators to issue secret holds. His motives were noble, and he fought for its elimination until the end. In his final speech, entered into the Record but not delivered, he defended an individual Senator's right to block legislation in secret. ``Our Founding Fathers intended the Senate,'' he lectured colleagues last month in one of his last appearances, to have ``unlimited debate and the protection of minority rights.''

Senator Byrd's respect for Senate rules and procedure were second only to his defense and passion for the Constitution. Because of his leadership, we were able to establish September 17 as Constitution Day. Now, annually, students across the country will learn about and celebrate the document that governs our Nation and hopefully understand the significance of this unparalleled document that has established freedom and sovereignty of our citizens for hundreds of years.

Senator Byrd spent practically all of his adult life serving the American people for which we are all grateful. Even when he disagreed with his peers in the Senate, he respected their intellect and views. I am honored to have served beside him. He once said, ``On the great issues, the Senate has always been blessed with senators who were able to rise above party and consider first and foremost the national interest.'' I agree and hope the Senate continues to attract candidates who will rise above politics for the good of our country and who will appreciate the history of the institution as Senator Byrd did.

Senator Byrd gave his life to the service of his country and the Senate and the Nation will miss him and the important leadership and sense of history that he brought to this body every day.

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

Mr. President, I rise to discuss Solicitor General Elena Kagan's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. During my time in Congress, I have had the honor to vote in support for the nominations of several Associate Justices put forward by both Democratic and Republican Presidents. Presidents are due a great amount of deference in the evaluation of his or her nominees to be members of the highest Court in the land, and elections, I understand very well, do have consequences. However, in this case I am not able to provide such deference to President Obama's nominee who has shown such a public unwillingness to follow the law.

When Ms. Kagan was dean of the Harvard Law School, she unmistakably discouraged Harvard students from considering a career in the military by denying military recruiters the same access to Harvard students that was granted to the Nation's top law firms. She barred military recruiters because she believed the Federal Government's don't ask, don't tell policy to be ``a profound wrong--a moral injustice of the first order.''

Ms. Kagan is entitled to her opinion of whether the policy is wrong. She is not entitled to ignore the law that required universities to allow military recruiters on campus or forgo Federal funds.

The chief of recruiting for the Air Force Judge Advocate General Corps was repeatedly blocked from participating in Harvard's spring 2005 recruiting season and wrote to Pentagon leaders: ``Harvard is playing games and won't give us an on-campus interviewing date.''

The Army's report from the 2005 recruiting season was even more blunt, stating: ``The Army was stonewalled at Harvard.''

Ms. Kagan sought a compromise by asking the law school's Veterans Association to host military recruiters, but the association responded: ``Given our tiny membership, meager budget, and lack of any office space, we possess neither the time nor the resources . . . of duplicating the excellent assistance provided by the Harvard Law School Office of Career Services.''

The association was right and an Air Force Judge Advocate General recruiter wrote Pentagon officials, and I quote from his letter: ``Without the support of the Career Services Office, we are relegated to wandering the halls in hopes that someone will stop and talk to us.''

That was a remarkable statement from a military recruiter. According to the Solomon Amendment, any institution that barred recruiters from their campus would therefore not be eligible for Federal funds. Ms. Kagan and Harvard University, in general, and the law school in particular, were, according to this Air Force officer, doing that. ``Without the support of the Career Services Office we are relegated to wandering the halls in hopes that someone will stop and talk to us.''

The university that portrays itself as the premier institution in America relegated our officers and recruiters for honorable service in the military of the United States of America to ``wandering the halls in hopes that someone will stop and talk to us.''

Ms. Kagan had a direct role in seeing that military recruiters were ``relegated to wandering the halls in hopes that someone will stop and talk'' to them. Ms. Kagan's claim that she was bound by Harvard's antidiscrimination policy is belied by the fact that her predecessor allowed military recruiters full official access, a policy Ms. Kagan changed.

While Ms. Kagan barred military recruiters access to the school, Harvard continued to receive millions of dollars in Federal aid. I will not go into my opinion of Harvard University's behavior throughout this whole issue of whether recruiters should be allowed on their campus. There are members of the ROTC who are still condemned to go to a neighboring institution for their training. But we are speaking of Ms. Kagan.

During her confirmation hearing last month, Ms. Kagan asserted that Harvard law school was ``never out of compliance with the law . . . in fact, the veterans' association did a fabulous job of letting all our students know that the military recruiters were going to be at Harvard. . . .''

She went on to state: ``The military at all times during my deanship had full and good access.''

Absolutely false statement. Facts show that these statements are false, and recruitment for our Nation's military suffered due to her actions.

Well, I strongly disagree with Ms. Kagan. I take no issue in terms of her nomination with her opposition to President Clinton's don't ask, don't tell policy. She is free to have her own ownership. Ms. Kagan was not free to ignore the Solomon Amendment's requirement to provide military recruiters equal access because she opposed don't ask, don't tell. In short, she interpreted her duties as dean of Harvard to be consistent with what she wished the law to be, not with what the law was as written.

In the end, Ms. Kagan's interpretation of the Solomon Amendment was soundly rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court. By changing the policy she inherited and restricting military recruiter access when the prevailing law was to the contrary, Ms. Kagan stepped beyond public advocacy in opposition to a policy and into the realm of usurping the prerogative of the Congress and the President to make law and the courts to interpret it. It is precisely for this reason that I cannot support her nomination.

I have previously stated that I do not believe judges should stray beyond their constitutional role and act as if they have greater insight into the meaning of the broad principles of our Constitution than representatives who are elected by the people. These activist judges assume the judiciary is a superlegislature of moral philosophers. It demonstrates a lack of respect for the popular will that is fundamental to our republican system of government.

Regardless of one's success in academic and government service, an individual who does not appreciate the commonsense limitations on judicial power in our democratic system of government ultimately lacks a key qualification for a lifetime appointment to the bench. For Ms. Kagan, given the choice to uphold the law that was unpopular with her peers and students or interpret the law to achieve her own political objectives, she chose the latter.

I cannot support her nomination to the Supreme Court, where, based on her prior actions, she is unlikely to exercise judicial restraint and respect the roles of the coequal branches of government.

I am sure my colleague from Alabama, who has done so much work on this issue, probably recalls that during her confirmation process, Peter Hegseth, who is the executive director of Vets for Freedom, a veteran of the Iraq war, and currently an infantry captain in the Massachusetts Army National Guard, testified: ``I have serious concern about Elena Kagan's actions toward the military and her willingness to myopically focus on preventing the military from having institutional and equal access to top-notch recruits at a time of war.''

He went on to say: ``I find her actions toward military recruiters at Harvard unbecoming a civic leader and unbefitting a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.''

Another veteran, Flagg Youngblood, ROTC graduate from Princeton, testified at the same hearing: To defend the barriers Dean Kagan erected by saying military recruiting did not suffer misses the point. Just imagine how many more among Harvard Law's 1,900 young adults would have answered the Defense Department's call.

Lastly, retired Air Force COL Thomas Moe, a veteran with 33 years of service to our Nation, testified: ``Ms. Kagan knowingly defied a particular law and treated military recruiters as second-class citizens. How can our warriors look at such people when they are poised at the tip of the sword, ready to sacrifice everything for their country, while a cloistered clique in ivory towers eats away at their institution for the sake of narrow ideological interests.''

I know the Senator from Alabama was present at these hearings. I ask unanimous consent to engage in a short colloquy with the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. President, Ms. Kagan stated that she--I understand her words were ``reveres the military;'' is that correct?

Is it a bit contradictory that you would want to treat the military as ``separate but equal,'' condemning them--the Air Force Judge Advocate General military person said they were condemned to wandering the halls of Harvard Law School in hopes that someone would stop and talk to them. Is that, I wonder, in keeping with the actions of someone who claims they revere the military?

May I ask the Senator, is there any doubt in your mind, given the testimony of other witnesses, including letters such as from the Air Force Judge Advocate General recruiters and others, that Ms. Kagan--then Dean Kagan--did take these actions restricting the access of recruiters to the Harvard Law School?

But at the same time, then-Dean Kagan never asked to return the Federal funds that were flowing into the university?

So then-Dean Kagan's actions, which she believed--and I respect her views that it was a moral imperative, and basically she chose what she viewed as a moral imperative--i.e., her opposition to the don't ask, don't tell law--as overriding compliance with the law, which then brings into question her qualifications and what her future actions will be as a member of the U.S. Supreme Court.

So we are not discussing the merits or demerits of a law that was passed by Congress; we are discussing then-Dean Kagan's actions in opposition to this law which were absolutely in contradiction to the law.

Could I finally ask my colleague from Alabama, do you ever think the day will come when we have a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court who didn't go to Harvard Law School?

Maybe that might be healthy for America.

Or perhaps Alabama.

Frankly, I would say to my colleague from Alabama, obviously it is not related to Dean Kagan, but treatment at these elite institutions in the Ivy League, going all the way back to the Vietnam war--you know, they are entitled to their views and their opinions and their opposition, but to treat people who were designated by the President of the United States to be recruiters, to motivate other young men and women to join what I believe is a very honorable profession, most honorable, to put impediments in their way and intentionally block their ability to do so is something that I guess they will have to answer for in the future.

I thank my colleague from Alabama for his leadership on this issue on the Judiciary Committee. He has worked tirelessly, night and day, on this issue for a long period of time now. I thank the Senator from Alabama for his outstanding work and leadership. I appreciate it. I know Americans do too.

Mr. President, I opposed the motion to invoke cloture on the small business lending bill for several reasons, with the foremost being that it had become a vehicle for petty partisanship rather than a serious effort to extend a much-needed helping hand to America's small businesses.

The manner in which this bill has been deliberated in the Senate has been both frustrating and disappinting to say the very least. The majority leader has brought this bill up for consideration and then moved off of it to consider other matters no less than six times since June 24. Furthermore, he has offered at least three different substitute amendments--each time filling the amendment tree and filing cloture--effectively choking off debate and prohibiting my colleagues and me on this side of the aisle from offering amendments.

This should not be a partisan bill. In fact, as originally introduced, this measure enjoyed broad bipartisan support. The original version of this bill included many positive provisions. For example, it included a number of tax provisions that had been championed by both Republican and Democrats which both sides believed would help small businesses create new jobs.

The $30 billion fund contained in this bill was supposedly designed to provide capital to community banks and give them incentives to make loans to small business owners. While this is a nice notion, I have heard from some of the smaller, community banks in my home State of Arizona that the capital requirements were so stringent that they would not even qualify for the program and, there are serious concerns as to whether or not this would turn into another bank bailout program.

One of the provisions of this bill that I strongly opposed was a carve-out of $1.5 billion for agriculture disaster assistance which was not requested by the administration. While I support ensuring that our farmers are protected from financial losses caused by natural disasters, Congress must first find a way to pay for this increased spending just like many of the other handouts included in this bill. That is why many of my colleagues had hoped to offer amendments, including an amendment to extend expiring tax breaks for small business owners, an amendment to eliminate the death tax, and an amendment to make permanent the tax credit for research and development--just to name a few. Unfortunately, the majority prevented us from offering those important amendments.

I had planned to offer an amendment on border security that would have helped generate sales tax revenue for border towns. The amendment would have added an additional 6,000 new Custom and Border Protection agents and officers to secure the border and to ensure that those seeking to cross our borders legally at our ports of entry are able to do so without unnecessary wait times. There are frequent, often excessive wait times in the northbound lanes at the DeConcini/Port of Entry in Nogales. The economy of Nogales, AZ, is heavily dependent on cross border traffic, with the majority of the city's sales tax revenue generated by shoppers from Mexico. The long wait times to cross the border are having real, adverse effects on the economy of Nogales. Securing our borders should be the top priority of CBP and that the drug related violence that threatens our border communities must be combated with all available resources. With that said, businesses and law abiding citizens should be able to cross the border in an efficient manner.

Our economic recovery and the creation of new jobs are the most important issues facing our nation today. We have an unemployment rate of 9.5 percent and we need to do all that we can to help our small businesses thrive. It is my sincere hope that we can end the partisan bickering and reach an agreement that will give our small businesses the tools necessary to create jobs.

Mr. President, I will oppose cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 3628, the DISCLOSE Act. My reasons for opposing this motion are very simple--this is clearly a partisan attempt by the majority to gain an advantage in the upcoming election. There was no hearing held in the Rules Committee on this bill and no Republican members were given the opportunity to consider the bill and offer amendments in a committee markup.

Additionally, this bill is stuffed with onerous new government regulations and is loaded with loopholes and carve-outs for special interests. The authors of this bill insist that it is fair and is not designed to benefit one party over the other. That is simply not the case. One example of this is the ban on campaign-related activities by Federal Government contractors. If this legislation were enacted--tens of thousands of American businesses--large and small would be prohibited from engaging in campaigns while labor unions--which receive Federal grants and routinely negotiate collective bargaining agreements with the Federal Government--would be free to operate as they see fit. It is a simple matter of fairness, and this bill as drafted is patently unfair.

As my colleagues know, I have been involved in the issue of campaign finance reform for most of my career, and I am fully supportive of measures which call for full and complete disclosure of all spending in Federal campaigns.

When my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, and I set out to eliminate the corrupting influence of soft money and to reform how our campaigns are paid for--we vowed to be truly bipartisan and to do nothing which would give one party a political advantage over the other. As my colleague from Arizona noted earlier--the new rules created under our legislation applied equally to everyone, and they only applied after the subsequent election. That is not the case with this piece of legislation. The provisions of this bill would become effective 30 days after being signed by the President. This bill is clearly designed to silence American businesses while allowing labor unions to speak and spend freely in the elections this November.

I encourage my colleagues to oppose cloture on the motion to proceed to this bill, and I urge my friends in the majority to go back to the drawing board and bring back a bill that is truly fair, truly bipartisan, and requires true full disclosure.

Madam President, very soon, we will be voting to move to consider the House-passed version of the 2010 supplemental appropriations bill.

I will vote against proceeding to the bill for one simple reason: It is not fully offset and now has a pricetag of $80 billion. When will the spending stop?

When the Senate considered the supplemental in May of this year, the bill totaled nearly $60 billion. Again, I opposed it because our version was not paid for, and it added to the ever-growing deficit for future generations. Those who say we oppose small business and all the motherhood and apple pie provisions of this bill, all we want to do is have it paid for.

Dr. Coburn and I had two reasonable amendments to fully offset the cost of the bill when it was $60 billion. I am sure we could find offsets for this $80 billion bill--if amendments were in order.

Our amendment would have saved taxpayers a combined total of nearly $120 billion by freezing raises, bonuses, and salary increases for Federal employees for a year; collecting unpaid taxes from Federal employees, which is $3 billion; reducing printing and publishing costs of government documents; eliminating nonessential government travel; eliminating bonuses for poor performance by government contractors, which is $8 billion. The list goes on and on. It also includes cutting budgets of Members of Congress, which would save $100 million; disposing of unneeded and unused government property, which would save $15 billion.

In other words, the size of government has doubled since 1990. Surely, it is time we started paying for these spending bills.

Our efforts failed. The majority, once again, succeeded in preventing the elimination of a single dime of wasteful and unnecessary and duplicative spending.

I remind my colleagues that in April of 2009, well over a year ago, the President wrote to Speaker Pelosi and said this:

As I noted when I first introduced my budget in February,

this is the last planned war supplemental.

That was in April of 2009 when the President said last year, April, was the last planned war supplemental.

He went on to say:

Since September 2001, the Congress has passed 17 separate

emergency funding bills totaling $822.1 billion for the wars

in Iraq and Afghanistan. After 7 years of war, the American

people deserve an honest accounting of the cost of our

involvement in our ongoing military operations.

I could not agree more. That is why I am disappointed to see yet another supplemental spending bill--designated as an emergency--and without offsets.

Now the majority leader wants us to take up the House-passed bill, which exceeds the cost of the Senate version by $22 billion--nearly $23 billion. The House added $10 billion for an education jobs program and $4.9 billion for Pell grants. Other items added by the House include $80 million for energy loans, $142 million for the gulf oilspill--the list goes on and on. Many of these are very worthy causes, very worthy items. But it should not be added to a must-pass bill to fund our troops, and it should be fully offset. That is what this debate has been all about for a long time--not whether these are worthy items, not whether we should have $10 billion for an education jobs program-- although I seriously question that one--but the question is, Are we going to pay for it?

When are we going to stop mortgaging our children's and grandchildren's future and start balancing the budget and reducing and eliminating spending? Our soldiers and their families are making tremendous sacrifices. Why don't we make some sacrifices? Why don't we forego the earmarks and the special interests and the special deals that continue to characterize our behavior?

I don't need to remind my colleagues that we are fighting two wars. But the House has proposed reduced defense spending for this fiscal year and prior year funding by $3.2 billion to help pay for the $22.8 billion added by the House for domestic programs.

Subsequent to House action on the supplemental, the chairman of both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees further reduced the Defense Department's fiscal year 2011 discretionary base allocations below the President's request by $7 billion and $8 billion, respectively.

In other words, we are increasing domestic spending, larding it on this, by some $60 billion, and at the same time we are cutting defense.

One issue of concern is a provision contained in the Senate-passed bill to provide funding for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to exercise his authority to expand the number of service-related illnesses presumed to be connected to exposure to Agent Orange. The cost of that provision is $42 billion over 10 years and will most assuredly have a detrimental impact on the ability of the VA to process current and backlogged claims in a timely manner.

Perhaps the most controversial provision added by the House is the $10 billion for an education jobs fund. This money would be used to supplement State budgets to pay the salaries of teachers, administrators, janitors, and other school personnel.

I fully support the goal of saving teachers' jobs, but this certainly isn't the way to do it. In fact, the government should be incentivizing districts to make crucial reforms so that effective teachers are rewarded.

The proposed Education Jobs Fund would continue the archaic seniority system that many say rewards bad teachers instead of the most effective teachers.

Additionally, the House proposed $800 million in spending cuts to help offset the cost of this $10 billion fund--an act which quickly drew a veto threat from the President. The bill proposes to cut $500 million from the Race to the Top Fund. I don't know of a better educational incentive in recent years than the Race to the Top Fund. Yet they are going to cut $500 million from it.

The bill proposes to cut $200 million from the Teacher Incentive Fund that supports creation of pay-for-performance programs and $100 million from the Charter Schools Program. All these are proven ways to help education in America, so they are going to cut them.

They are going to cut the Charter Schools Program. In my State, charter schools have worked and have provided competition to the public school system. If the cuts to the Charter Schools Program in the House- passed bill are enacted, as many as 200 fewer charter schools could start next year and approximately 6,000 charter school employees could be in jeopardy of losing their jobs. There are 420,000 children on charter school waiting lists nationally. Now is not the time to stop supporting the growth of new charter schools.

I could go on and on about what this bill does. Of interest is the House decreased by $27 million the funding for the hiring of additional Border Patrol agents for the southwest border, decreased by $63 million the funding for the acquisition of unmanned aerial vehicles and helicopters, and decreased by $1 million the construction of forward operating bases for use by the Border Patrol. Every one of those programs that have been cut are effective in securing our border.

Even more egregious is that the House cut $100 million more than the President requested from the account that funds the construction of and repairs to the border fence. I support the President's request to rescind $100 million from the failed virtual fence project, but this money should go toward increased Border Patrol and Customs agents and technology. I do not support the House's effort to cut an additional $100 million in funding that is currently available and being used to complete construction of the border fence and repair the constant damage done to the fence by those trying to illegally cross into our country.

In summary, in the past 2 years, America has faced her greatest fiscal challenges since the Great Depression. When the financial market collapsed, it was the American taxpayer who came to the rescue of the banks and big Wall Street firms. But who has come to the rescue of the American taxpayer? Not Congress.

What has Congress done? We have saddled future generations with trillions of dollars of debt. Since January

2009, we have been on a spending binge, the likes of which this Nation has never seen. In that time, our debt has grown by over $2 trillion. We passed a $1.1 trillion stimulus bill. Has anybody seen any good things from that? We spent $83 billion to bail out the domestic auto industry. We passed a $2.5 trillion health care bill. We now have a deficit of over $1.4 trillion and a debt of $13 trillion. That amounts to more than $42,000 owed by every man, woman, and child in America.

This year, the government will spend more than $3.6 trillion and will borrow 41 cents for every $1 it spends. Unemployment remains around 9.7 percent. According to forbes.com, a record 2.8 million American households were threatened with foreclosure last year, and that number is expected to rise to well over 3 million homes this year.

Now with this bill, the majority wants to tack on another $80 billion. When is it going to end? It may end next January. It may end next January because the American people will not stand for this continued crime we are inflicting on our children and our grandchildren.

The greatness of America is that every generation has passed on to the next generation a better one than that generation inherited. I cannot say that about the next generation with the debt with which we have saddled them. This kind of legislation has to be soundly rejected.

I yield the floor.

Mr, President, today I share the honor with Chairman Lieberman of introducing the First Responders Protection Act of 2010. This bill would provide 10 MHz of spectrum in the 700 MHz spectrum band to the public safety broadband licensee, make available funding for the construction, operation and maintenance of a nationwide interoperable communications network, and ensure proper governance.

In 2004, the 9/11 Commission's Final Report recommended the ``expedited and increased assignment of radio spectrum to public safety entities.'' Shortly thereafter, Senator Lieberman and I introduced a bill to provide spectrum to public safety; however the Senate voted down that bill. We reintroduced the bill in 2005--a month before Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast. But our efforts were blocked. Fortunately, Congress finally wrestled some spectrum away from the television broadcasters in 2009 and provided it to public safety. However, public safety has additional spectrum needs.

Almost every other recommendation of the 9/11 Commission has been implemented, but this important recommendation remains unfulfilled. I can only imagine how many lives could have been saved on 9/11 if this spectrum had been available at that time. How many firefighters would be alive today if they could have communicated with their battalion chief at the base of the World Trade Center? Recently, in Arizona, we had a horrible murder committed in a rural area along the border. Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever has stated that the lack of interoperable communications between the sheriffs' department and other law enforcement officers hindered the immediate investigation into tracking the suspect.

In 2007, I introduced legislation to auction the remaining public safety spectrum to a commercial carrier that would then build out a network for public safety. The FCC held such an auction, but no bidder met the reserve price. Ten megahertz of spectrum remains available for public safety's needs. The FCC has announced its intention auction this spectrum to a commercial provider.

Once this spectrum is auctioned, it will be impossible to ever get it back. That is why Congress must act now and provide the remaining spectrum directly to public safety. This legislation would do just that.

Specifically, this legislation would license the remaining spectrum to the public safety broadband licensee that has been previously approved by the FCC as a qualified licensee and represents 38 national public safety organizations. The legislation provides authority to local jurisdictions to make decisions on the spectrum use, network build-out and equipment. The men and women fighting crime and saving lives know what communications systems and technology are best for them. Not Washington.

Lastly, this bill provides funds for grants to localities for the construction, operation and maintenance of an interoperable communications network. These funds will come from the proceeds of a commercial spectrum auction, thereby not adding to our nation's burgeoning debt or raising taxes on all Americans.

As we approach the 9 year commemoration of the horrific events on September 11 and the 5-year remembrance of the devastating tragedy of Hurricane Katrina, it is disgraceful that police officers, sheriffs and fire fighters still don't have a nation-wide interoperable communications system. Our legislation provides the spectrum and funding to first responders, while being fiscally responsible and ensuring local control and conscientious governance.

This legislation is supported by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the National Sheriffs Association, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Major County Sheriffs

Association, the Metropolitan Fire Chiefs Association, the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials, International, APCO, the National Emergency Managers Association, the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the International City/County Management Association.

I hope my colleagues will join me in providing public safety with the interoperable communications network they deserve.

Mr, President, today I share the honor with Chairman Lieberman of introducing the First Responders Protection Act of 2010. This bill would provide 10 MHz of spectrum in the 700 MHz spectrum band to the public safety broadband licensee, make available funding for the construction, operation and maintenance of a nationwide interoperable communications network, and ensure proper governance.

In 2004, the 9/11 Commission's Final Report recommended the ``expedited and increased assignment of radio spectrum to public safety entities.'' Shortly thereafter, Senator Lieberman and I introduced a bill to provide spectrum to public safety; however the Senate voted down that bill. We reintroduced the bill in 2005--a month before Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast. But our efforts were blocked. Fortunately, Congress finally wrestled some spectrum away from the television broadcasters in 2009 and provided it to public safety. However, public safety has additional spectrum needs.

Almost every other recommendation of the 9/11 Commission has been implemented, but this important recommendation remains unfulfilled. I can only imagine how many lives could have been saved on 9/11 if this spectrum had been available at that time. How many firefighters would be alive today if they could have communicated with their battalion chief at the base of the World Trade Center? Recently, in Arizona, we had a horrible murder committed in a rural area along the border. Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever has stated that the lack of interoperable communications between the sheriffs' department and other law enforcement officers hindered the immediate investigation into tracking the suspect.

In 2007, I introduced legislation to auction the remaining public safety spectrum to a commercial carrier that would then build out a network for public safety. The FCC held such an auction, but no bidder met the reserve price. Ten megahertz of spectrum remains available for public safety's needs. The FCC has announced its intention auction this spectrum to a commercial provider.

Once this spectrum is auctioned, it will be impossible to ever get it back. That is why Congress must act now and provide the remaining spectrum directly to public safety. This legislation would do just that.

Specifically, this legislation would license the remaining spectrum to the public safety broadband licensee that has been previously approved by the FCC as a qualified licensee and represents 38 national public safety organizations. The legislation provides authority to local jurisdictions to make decisions on the spectrum use, network build-out and equipment. The men and women fighting crime and saving lives know what communications systems and technology are best for them. Not Washington.

Lastly, this bill provides funds for grants to localities for the construction, operation and maintenance of an interoperable communications network. These funds will come from the proceeds of a commercial spectrum auction, thereby not adding to our nation's burgeoning debt or raising taxes on all Americans.

As we approach the 9 year commemoration of the horrific events on September 11 and the 5-year remembrance of the devastating tragedy of Hurricane Katrina, it is disgraceful that police officers, sheriffs and fire fighters still don't have a nation-wide interoperable communications system. Our legislation provides the spectrum and funding to first responders, while being fiscally responsible and ensuring local control and conscientious governance.

This legislation is supported by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the National Sheriffs Association, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Major County Sheriffs

Association, the Metropolitan Fire Chiefs Association, the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials, International, APCO, the National Emergency Managers Association, the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the International City/County Management Association.

I hope my colleagues will join me in providing public safety with the interoperable communications network they deserve.