Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of our committee, Senator Inouye, for his leadership and the bipartisan way he has gone about managing his responsibilities as chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. The committee has carefully reviewed the President's budget request in public hearings, calling before the committee representatives of the various service departments and also opening the opportunity for any outside interest to come to talk about what our needs are. In my judgment it has been a very careful, prudent, and workmanlike way to approach this very solemn and important responsibility. So he has brought us to where we are today, scheduled a vote, finally, on final passage later today, providing funding for our national security agencies, the Department of Defense, the men and women who have volunteered to put themselves in harm's way, to wear the uniform of our country and to defend our country against aggression here and abroad.

The Department is currently being funded by a continuing resolution. Although forcing the Department to operate under a temporary resolution is not a very good way to provide funding for a department charged with protecting our national security interests, it is the best we could do. I applaud the leadership of Senator Inouye for bringing a bill before us that will cover the entire Department of Defense for the remainder of the fiscal year, and for working with our counterparts in the House to begin resolving differences between the two bodies so that a bill can soon be presented to the President for signature.

There has been much discussion about earmarks. The chairman raised the issue. Later this afternoon we will vote on an earmark-related amendment or two. There are those who have been striving to inject additional earmark reforms and other ways of doing business. We think we have carefully reviewed all the requests for spending,

all of the provisions that permit spending in this bill, to be sure they are warranted, justified, in the national interest, and is not there only to serve some special interest or private interest of a Member of Congress.

Congress has worked, the House and Senate together, to improve and make significant changes in the process, adding procedures to facilitate the closest possible scrutiny of congressionally directed spending. In addition, the Appropriations Committee has gone beyond those requirements and imposed additional disclosure requirements and limitations on earmarking. But I am not going to support any suggested changes that will take away from the Congress or diminish the power of the Congress specifically to carry out its responsibilities under the Constitution to direct spending.

The committee has recommended, and the Senate has acted in its wisdom to approve or reject certain provisions of the bill. We have entertained all amendments. There is no closed rule. There is no specified number of amendments. There is no prohibition against any amendment of any Senator. So anyone who has a problem with this bill or any provision has had a right to say what it is, offer a change in the way of an amendment, and to have the Senate vote on it. That is the way we conduct business in the Senate on earmarks. It is an open process.

There is nothing in the procurement history of the Department of Defense to support the notion that the Department has been infallible in cost effectively procuring solutions for our Defense Department needs, and doing so in a fair, open, and evenhanded manner. The inspector general and GAO reports are replete with examples of poor judgment in Defense Department activities having nothing to do with congressionally directed spending. The GAO has upheld protests in recent years in which the Department did not perform its acquisition responsibilities in a lawful and appropriate manner.

So there are a lot of checks and balances that are at work in the process, and I think we have to remind ourselves how thorough and diligent many people are in assuring that the things that are approved in this bill serve the public interest, not just the private interests or whims of Members of Congress.

We have increased funding for the requirement that the Department of Defense identified over the summer for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles for our men and women serving in Afghanistan. We have imposed new requirements to help protect our soldiers in uniform and on the battlefield. We have included an additional $1.2 billion for the MRAP program, and it is above what the administration has requested. I think we have acted responsibly, and I strongly defend the decision the committee has made on this subject. I have no doubt including funding for the procurement of these additional vehicles will save American lives.

Congressionally directed defense initiatives should be subject to the closest scrutiny of the Appropriations Committee, and of the legislative process as a whole including the authorizing procedure which precedes the appropriations process. The activities of the Department of Defense were carefully scrutinized by the Armed Services Committee, which shares responsibilities for making these decisions, as well as the Appropriations Committee. But I do not think Members of this body should feel ashamed or embarrassed to promote the passage of this bill. It is a good bill. It enhances our national security, and it supports the efforts we are making to protect the security interests of this great country.

I thank the Senate for allowing me to make these comments and the distinguished Senator from Hawaii for being an active, responsible partner in the development of this legislation.

I move to table the motion to reconsider.

I move to table the motion to reconsider.

I thank the Chair.

Amendment No. 2588

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I urge the Senate to oppose amendment No. 2560 offered by the Senator from Arizona.

This amendment would require all congressionally directed spending items to be competed but would allow items requested by the President to be executed with limited or no competition.

In practice, this amendment would create separate acquisition criteria for items funded in the bill. It does not allow for traditional exceptions to the competitive process for such programs as small business set-asides, socially and disadvantaged firms, or women- owned businesses.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the McCain amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators McCaskill and DeMint be added as cosponsors to amendment No. 2560 to H.R. 3326, the 2010 Department of Defense Appropriations Act.

Mr. President, I want to congratulate the chairman of the committee for helping work out this agreement. We appreciate the cooperation of all Senators.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that LCDR Steven McDowell, a Navy fellow in Senator Collins' office, be provided full floor privileges for the duration of the consideration of H.R. 3326.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Signing Authorization

Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator for bringing to the attention of the Senate this suggested change. We have no problem with having this amendment adopted on a voice vote, if that suits the manager on the other side.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I have no objection to the Senator discussing her suggestion.

Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 3617

Mr. President, as the Senate realizes the business today is the administration's fiscal year 2010 Defense budget proposal, our Committee on Appropriations, as everyone knows, in the regular order, had hearings and took advantage of advice from testimony and suggestions received by other Senators on and off the committee about the provisions of this important legislation. It sets out, as the Senate appreciates, the funding that will be permitted by the Department of Defense for the next fiscal year. So the subject we have today before us is specifically an issue involving a funding provision in the administration's fiscal year 2010 Defense budget proposal.

The administration proposed several funding cuts for weapons programs they deemed unneeded. The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its hearings and in its deliberations, reviewed each of the proposals and generally agreed with the recommendations set forth in the administration's budget submittal.

This bill does not include additional funding for F-22 aircraft, the Presidential helicopter, the Joint Strike Fighter alternate engine, the combat search and rescue helicopter, the Kinetic Energy Interceptor, and several other programs which were proposed for funding cuts by this administration.

The C-17 aircraft is an area where we did not agree. The committee proposed $2.5 billion be included in the bill for 10 additional aircraft. As we all know, the Defense Department is not infallible. It was wrong and overruled by Congress when it recommended program terminations of the F-117 stealth fighter and the V-22 Osprey.

The C-17 is the current backbone of our strategic airlift capability, and it will be for decades to come. C-17s are being utilized all over the world at a much faster pace than previously anticipated. While they comprise only 60 percent of the Air Force's strategic airlift fleet, they are flying 80 percent of all worldwide strategic airlift missions.

This demand for C-17 lift capability is only going to grow as new airlift missions emerge. Other missions we know about already are rapid deployment of theater missile defenses, counterinsurgency operations, as well as growing airlift demands for an expanding Army and Marine Corps.

Failure to fund the C-17 will result in the United States shutting down its airlift manufacturing base at a time when the demand for airlift is likely to grow. Allowing the C-17 supply base and production line to shut down and then trying to reconstitute it would cost billions of dollars and take years to accomplish.

The Quadrennial Defense Review and the upcoming Mobility Capability and Requirements Study are reassessing our strategic airlift requirements. Until those requirements are reevaluated, the C-17s should be included in this bill. The Air Force Chief of Staff has stated that he believes 205 C-17s and 111 C-5s are needed to meet strategic airlift requirements and that procuring more than the 205 C- 17s already purchased should involve a light reduction and retirement of C-5A aircraft.

Prior to enactment of the fiscal year 2009 Supplemental Appropriations Act in June of this year, the Air Force was prohibited from retiring the older and less capable C-5As. Now that the Department has authority to retire these aircraft, we should replace a number of

them with a highly capable aircraft in production today. The Government Accountability Office has concluded:

It will take seven fully modernized C-5s at a cost of $132

million each to attain the equivalent capability achieved

from buying one additional C-17 at a cost of $276 million.

In other words, it would cost $924 million to modernize seven C-5s to get the same capability of one C-17 costing $276 million.

Based on the growing airlift needs and the new authority to retire the aging and hard-to-maintain C-5 aircraft, we added the $2.5 billion to sustain production of the C-17 program for 1 additional year. This additional year will give the Department of Defense time to complete its airlift reviews and preserve the option of adding to our strategic airlift fleet.

If funding for C-17s is eliminated in this bill and the ongoing studies determine additional airlift is needed, at best there will be significant cost increases and delays in getting the aircraft to the fleet; at worst, it will be cost prohibitive to restart the line and our service men and women will be denied equipment needed to perform their missions. That would be totally unacceptable, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the McCain amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jason Lindsey, a military fellow in my office, and Tom Osterhoudt, a detailee to the Appropriations Committee, be granted the privileges of the floor during consideration of H.R. 3326, the fiscal year 2010 Defense appropriations bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that for the duration of H.R. 3326, the 2010 Department of Defense Appropriations Act, Senator McCain's Navy fellow, Mark Holzrichter, be granted floor privileges of the Senate.

Mr. President, I thank Chairman Inouye for his leadership and bipartisanship in putting together this legislation and moving it to the floor for consideration.

Two weeks ago, the Appropriations Committee unanimously approved this bill which provides over $636 billion for Department of Defense operations for fiscal year 2010, including $128 billion for overseas contingency operations. In compliance with committee allocation, this bill is $3.9 billion below the President's budget request.

Given the allocation, the committee was forced to make tough decisions. This bill reflects a balanced recommendation which fully funds key readiness programs as well as providing for pay, housing allowance, medical care and family support for our men and women in uniform and their families.

Included in this bill is funding for requirements identified by the administration after the budget request was submitted. Funding is included to address the administration's budget amendment to grow the Army by an additional 22,200 personnel. Also included is an additional $1.2 billion for 1400 mine resistant ambush protected vehicles that were recently identified as new requirements for our men and women serving in Afghanistan.

This bill also includes $1.5 billion in the National Guard and Reserve Equipment account to help the Guard and Reserve components procure needed equipment. The Guard and Reserve continue to answer the call to duty. With over 140,000 Guard and Reserve personnel activated, we need to ensure they have the resources necessary to be ready to perform their Federal and State missions. This additional funding will help ensure the Guard and Reserve have the equipment they need.

I urge Senators to support the passage of this bill so we can make sure service members and their civilian colleagues in the Department of Defense have the funding they need to carry out their responsibilities. The men and women who wear our Nation's uniform make great sacrifices and one way to

show our support is to provide funding in a timely manner. My hope is that we finish floor consideration of this bill this week. It would be good for all concerned if we could in a timely fashion before the end of this fiscal year.

Mr. President, I was deeply saddened by the recent announcement of the distinguished Senator from Florida, Mel Martinez, that he had decided to resign from the Senate. Although he had served in the Senate for a relatively short period of time--since January 4, 2005--he had become a very important influence in this body.

As the first Cuban American to serve in the Senate, he shared with us his personal experiences and insights into his early life in Cuba, including his separation from his parents at a young age as he traveled to Florida to embark upon a very successful new life of learning and leadership in the United States. He earned undergraduate and law degrees from Florida State University. He served as a member of the Orlando Utilities Commission and was elected Mayor of Orange County. President George W. Bush selected him to serve as a member of his Cabinet, as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. He was elected a United States Senator in 2004 and quickly established himself as an effective advocate for his State in the Senate.

Mel Martinez quickly became an active and influential member of the Armed Services Committee as well as the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, and the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. His constituents benefitted in particular from his service as ranking member of the Senate's Special Committee on Aging.

Mr. President I congratulate my friend from Florida on his very successful service and important contributions through his dedicated public service in Florida and in our Nation's Capital. I have enjoyed serving with him, and I wish him all the best in the years ahead.

Madam President, I wish to join Senator Murray and Senator Bond, the respective chairman and ranking member of the Transportation, HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, in a colloquy concerning the user fee funded pipeline safety programs overseen by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.

That is correct, and in order to better assess the current program priorities at PHMSA and to determine how these user fees are being allocated across the regulated community, I believe PHMSA should provide to the Committees on Appropriations a report that discloses the percentage of program funds and State grants that are dedicated to each of the following sectors: liquid pipelines, natural gas transmission pipelines, liquefied natural gas pipelines, and natural gas distribution pipelines.

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

Mr. President, the Senate Appropriations Committee has reported all 12 appropriations bills for fiscal year 2010, and the Senate has considered and passed 4 of those bills. I expect passage of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development bill we are now considering will be the fifth. I am pleased the full Senate has had the opportunity to consider and debate the policies and priorities embodied in these bills. All Senators have had the opportunity to question the managers and to offer amendments, if they wanted to do so.

By next week, I expect the House and the Senate will be convening conference committees to complete action on the bills that have already passed the Senate. It is a fact, however, there are only 2 weeks remaining in this fiscal year. We will probably need to pass a short- term continuing resolution to keep the remainder of the government running beyond September 30. While we anticipate we will be able to pass such a resolution, I think it is important we complete action on the remaining appropriations bills as soon as possible.

We have sent a letter, dated March 24, to the majority leader of the Senate--suggested by the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Corker, back last March--and in that letter we requested the leadership ``allocate an appropriate amount of time for the Senate to consider, vote, and initiate the conference process on each of the 12 appropriations bills independently through a deliberative and transparent process. . . .''

That letter stated a goal of passing 8 of the 12 bills before the August recess. While the Senate did not meet that goal of passing eight bills prior to the recess, I think we did make good progress. I have to congratulate the distinguished chairman from Washington for helping lead the way and helping us achieve that progress. To a degree, we have been hampered by the lateness of the President's budget request and the necessity of waiting for the House to pass the appropriations bills first.

But the House has now passed all of its bills, and we have a window of floor time available to consider the remaining bills in the Senate. I believe strongly all Members should have the opportunity to consider the bills and participate in this process and offer amendments, if they choose to do so. But with the end of the fiscal year approaching and floor time becoming a precious commodity, we should not have to spend large blocks of time in quorum calls waiting for Senators to offer amendments.

At some point, the bills will have to be taken up and passed one way or another. In the past, this has meant packaging bills together into omnibus bills, and we know how well that is received. Not at all. And all but a few Members lose the opportunity to participate and contribute through the amendment process and debate and influence the outcome of conference reports.

I have concerns about the budget proposed by the President, most of which is embodied in the congressional budget resolution that provides the framework for the appropriations process. I voted for several amendments to the budget resolution that would have reduced spending from the levels proposed by the President. I also voted against the resolution itself. I think the level of debt we have accumulated is alarming.

The fact remains, however, that Congress has approved the President's budget. While an Omnibus appropriations bill would highlight the problems with the President's spending policies, I do not think that course of action would be helpful to the process. By considering the bills individually, though, all Senators will be given an opportunity to have meaningful input and participation in the process, and that is as it should be.

So I look forward to continuing to work with the distinguished chairman, Mr. Inouye, our subcommittee chairs, and our two leaders, and all Senators to complete the appropriations process in an orderly and timely fashion that will reflect credit on the Senate.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to inform the Senate of the importance of the National Extension Association Family and Consumer Sciences, NEAFCS, and its network of associates on its 75th anniversary. This organization educates and recognizes Extension Service professionals who work to impact the quality of life for individuals, families, and communities. These educators provide practical, research-based education to help improve the quality of life for families and individuals.

Providing adults and youth with the necessary skills and knowledge to help them achieve the best quality of life possible is paramount to creating healthy families and a healthy American economy. The Cooperative Extension System, part of the land grant university system, is a nationwide educational network funded cooperatively by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, State governments, and county governments. Extension system initiatives in nutrition, healthy lifestyles, early brain development, food safety, financial management, and building strong families enable citizens to gain knowledge and skills to lead full and productive lives.

Cooperative Extension professionals and members of the National Extension Association of Family and Consumer Sciences have been offering educational workshops, seminars, publications, media outreach, and websites to help individuals and communities for 75 years. I commend the NEAFCS on their 75th anniversary as well as the local faculty and staff who provide education that is critical to the quality of life in many rural communities.

I also urge the President of the United States to issue a proclamation to commend this organization on its 75th anniversary. The American people should become more familiar with these services and take advantage of the educational opportunities that Family and Consumer Sciences educators offer through the extension system.

Madam President, it is difficult to imagine or accept the fact that Ted Kennedy is no longer serving in the Senate. He was such a presence here, a big man with a big smile and a bigger heart. He was sympathetic to those in need and willing to do all he could to address their needs. He got results, improving and expanding Federal programs to make available education and nutrition benefits to more Americans than ever before.

I first met the Senator from Massachusetts when he was running in his first campaign for the Senate in 1962. It was a happenstance meeting. I was an instructor at the Naval Officer's Candidate School in Newport, RI, and a friend had invited me up to Hyannis Port during the weekend. I ended up at Ted and Joan Kennedy's house. He was there working with his friends from Massachusetts on fund-raising activities. We exchanged greetings. He said: You are in law school?

I said: Yes, I am.

He said: It is hard as hell, isn't it?

I said: It sure is.

Well, that was about all the conversation we had that day and I had no idea, first of all, how his campaign would turn out and certainly the most remote thing in my mind would have been my being a Member of the Senate. But he and his wife Joan were spending the summer in Hyannis Port near the other Kennedy family members, so I was getting to see some of them as well as enjoying the New England weather; the ambiance in the summer was a real treat. But instead of politics, we talked about how hard law school was.

I didn't think I would ever see him again. I had no reason to think I would, much less end up serving in the Senate with him and serving the day he took charge as chairman of the Judiciary Committee from my predecessor in the Senate, James O. Eastland. It was a day that attracted a lot of attention. The hearing room was absolutely full of people. As a matter of fact, the news media was all over the place. It was hard to get near the seats of the committee members.

I remember when Alan Simpson and I were the two most junior Republicans, and as we were trying to get situated there at the end of the row of seats of committee members, one of the camera men bumped Al's head with his camera, and Al told him he should not do that again because he might have a hard time finding his camera--or some words to that effect. But what a day of excitement and interest. That is the kind of excitement Ted Kennedy brought not only to the Judiciary Committee and his leadership as a brand new chairman, but his entire career reflected that kind of exuberance. People responded and reacted to him in a very positive way in the Senate.

We could make a long list of the things he did in terms of legislative accomplishments and political leadership in the Senate. But he was a good person. He was a thoughtful person and generous with his house. He invited all the members of the Judiciary Committee to come out for dinner at his house in Washington. What a nice, thoughtful thing to do, and what an exciting evening it turned out to be. Everyone enjoyed it enormously.

Ted Kennedy became a very determined advocate for serious reforms, and he left an impressive record of legislative accomplishments and protecting and enlarging the civil rights of ordinary citizens.

I came to respect Senator Kennedy and appreciate his friendship over the years we served together in the Senate. His personal qualities, his generosity, and his serious commitment to fairness and assistance for those who needed help from their government will long be remembered and appreciated.

May he rest in peace.

Mr. President, I agree with my colleagues regarding the additional funding provided for NADC. Providing additional resources in this bill for ongoing research at NADC on emerging animal diseases will help protect animal and human health.

Commodity Supplemental Food Program