[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 148 (Wednesday, September 17, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8931-S8933]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 3001, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 3001) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2009 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid amendment No. 5290, to change the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 5291 (to amendment No. 5290), of a 
     perfecting nature.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I rise today in support of the fiscal 
year 2009 Defense Authorization Act, a critical piece of legislation 
that honors the men and women who are so honorably serving in the Armed 
Forces and that provides our military with the tools it needs to keep 
our country safe.
  I am most proud of the investments this legislation makes in our 
military's most important resource--the men and women who serve in 
uniform. Recognizing the strain multiple deployments and difficult 
economic times has placed on our troops and their families, this bill 
increases military pay by 3.9 percent.
  This bill goes further to make sure that we keep our military strong 
at a time when two wars have overstretched and overstressed our troops. 
The bill allows us to grow our military. By increasing the end strength 
of the Army, Marine Corps, Air National Guard, and Army Reserve, we can 
reduce the stress on our troops caused by multiple and extended 
deployments. And we can be sure we have the troops we need to meet 
future challenges in an ever more uncertain world.

[[Page S8932]]

  This bill continues bonuses and incentives that reward our military 
men and women and encourage them to continue their service. It provides 
new incentives to military psychologists and nursing students to 
address the ongoing shortages in these critical areas. The legislation 
prohibits the Administration's proposed increase in TRICARE fees for 
retirees and reservists.
  While medical treatment for wounded soldiers has improved 
dramatically over the course of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, too 
often that care is just too hard to access. I believe that managing 
paperwork and scheduling appointments in a timely and efficient manner 
is just as much a part of quality medical care as the treatment 
provided by medics and surgeons.
  Last year this Congress acted aggressively to address the red tape 
that kept our wounded warriors from their doctors and counselors. The 
Wounded Warrior Act allowed the Department of Defense to address the 
substandard living conditions, poor outpatient care and bureaucratic 
roadblocks faced by injured soldiers at Walter Reed and around the 
country.
  One month ago, I visited a soldier transition unit at Ft. Meade, MD. 
I saw firsthand how hard our wounded warriors are working to recover 
from their often devastating injuries. I saw a Department of Defense 
that has recommitted itself to making sure our wounded warriors and 
their families get the care and support they need and deserve. This 
bill requires that the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs 
continue the Senior Oversight Committee that oversees implementation of 
wounded warrior initiatives. This high level leadership is critical if 
we are going to continue to improve the quality of care we provide our 
troops.
  Investments in growing the force as well as in providing fair pay and 
good benefits are smart investments in our military's most valuable 
resource. Our military is only as strong as the skilled and dedicated 
men and women who serve.
  Even with all the important provisions in this bill, I think it can 
be even better. It's been 60 years since President Harry S. Truman 
ended racial segregation in the military. In the intervening years, 
military leaders have come to believe that maintaining a highly 
qualified, diverse military--from the enlisted ranks to the four-star 
generals and admirals--is essential to the military's ability to 
provide for our national security. A military that clearly reflects 
equal opportunity for everyone is critical, not only for morale, but 
also for readiness. Just look at the increasingly diverse enemies we 
confront and the divergent environments into which we send our troops.
  But despite future projections of minority growth in the United 
States, a recent senior-level Department of Defense projection found 
virtually no prospect for reaching adequate representation of 
minorities or women in the higher military ranks in the next decade. I 
am proud that increasing the racial/ethnic and gender diversity of our 
military leadership has become a strategic priority for the Department 
of Defense. The Department commissioned the Rand Corporation to make 
recommendations for how it could improve.
  Issued in 2008, the Rand Corporation's report, titled Planning for 
Diversity, found that the Department of Defense remains ill prepared to 
retain and promote minorities and women to leadership positions. 
Specifically, the Department is still without a uniform definition of 
diversity as well as a department-wide plan to guide, support, and 
streamline diversity efforts. On the heels of the 60th anniversary of 
integration of the Armed Forces, we can and must do better.
  I filed an amendment to the fiscal year 2009 Defense Authorization 
Act that would jump start the creation of a strategic plan for 
achieving this departmental priority: ensuring diversity at all levels 
of the military. My amendment would create a high-level task force to 
study the current state of diversity at all levels of the Armed Forces 
and make recommendations for improvement. The task force would consist 
of senior members of the Armed Forces as well as individuals with 
expertise in cultivating and managing diversity in private or non-
profit organizations. The task force would develop the first 
department-wide definition of diversity, evaluate existing policies for 
encouraging diversity in and outside the military, and make 
recommendations for future action for increasing diversity at all 
levels and in all areas of the military departments.
  The amendment builds on a provision included in the House Defense 
Authorization bill and incorporates comments by the Department of 
Defense. The Department stated in formal comments that it ``welcome[s] 
the assistance that would come from the work proposed by the 
legislation.''
  I am grateful to my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus, 
especially Congressman Elijah E. Cummings, Congresswoman Diane E. 
Watson, Congressman Hank Johnson, and Congressman Kendrick B. Meek who 
have worked so hard on this issue and on this provision. I am very 
disappointed today that the amendment could neither receive a vote nor 
be included in the bill by unanimous agreement. I hope that as the 
managers of this bill work to finalize the fiscal year 2009 Defense 
Authorization Act, they will consider the language I have proposed to 
increase diversity at all levels of the Armed Forces.
  Mr. President, in closing, I commend my colleagues Chairman Levin, 
Senator Warner, and all the other members of the Armed Services 
Committee for their hard work to craft and pass this bill. I look 
forward to casting my vote to support it. I also want to take a moment 
to congratulate Senator Warner for his work on countless other critical 
pieces of legislation in years past. I will miss his wise counsel on 
issues of national and regional importance, I will miss his good humor, 
and I will miss his grace. I wish him only the best in retirement.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise today to speak about the 2009 
Defense authorization bill. I will vote in favor of this legislation 
primarily because I support pay raises for our troops, but I have some 
very serious concerns about how this bill came to the floor.
  This $612.5 billion measure will authorize spending for national 
security programs in the Defense and Energy departments. That includes 
$70 billion to fight the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a 
3.9 percent pay raise for military personnel. I proudly support those 
appropriations.
  In the last year and a half, we have made incredible progress in our 
war against the terrorists, and in building a sustainable democracy in 
the heart of the Arab world. Since General Petraeus became the U.S. 
Senior Commander in Iraq. al-Qaida has been swept from its former 
strongholds in Anbar province and Baghdad. Roadside bomb attacks and 
fatalities in Iraq have fallen by nearly 90 percent. The Iraqis--
through organizations such as ``The Sons of Iraq''--are taking more 
responsibility for their security.
  General Petraeus recently left his position as Commanding General in 
Iraq to become the Commander of U.S. Central Command. The task of 
leading U.S. forces in Iraq now rests in the capable hands of GEN Ray 
Odierno. I commend General Odierno on his promotion, and on behalf of 
all America, I wish him success in completing the ``surge strategy.''
  We must resist calls for premature withdrawal from Iraq and maintain 
our presence there until victory is secure. Today's appropriations bill 
gives us the resources to continue that mission. However, the U.S. 
Senate has a long history of allowing members of both the majority and 
the minority to offer amendments, debate changes, and ensure that the 
concerns and ideas of every Senator are addressed. Traditionally a 
majority of Senators will decide an issue after bipartisan 
deliberation. But in this case, the Senate majority leader decided the 
issue with no input from the minority.
  The 110th Congress has experienced a record number of cloture votes--
due in no small part to the tactics employed by the majority. The 
methods by which this bill came to the floor are not in the best long-
term interests of the Senate. They are not in the best interests of the 
American people. The citizens of our country deserve better.
  I am glad that our brave service members will have the armaments and 
equipment they need, and that our veterans will have the health care 
and other benefits they deserve.

[[Page S8933]]

  Once again, I will vote for this legislation because the risk to our 
soldiers and veterans is too great. Time simply ran out. But we should 
all be concerned by the manner in which this bill was presented.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I regret that again this year I must vote 
against the National Defense Authorization Act. I support many of the 
provisions in this bill, which authorizes the activities of the 
Department of Defense, including important research, development and 
procurement funding to improve our Armed Forces and the operations and 
maintenance funding necessary to ensure the smooth running of the 
military services over the coming year. I support these activities, 
which not only benefit those servicemembers currently serving overseas 
in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also help build a strong and effective 
military for the future. I applaud the fine work of Senator Levin and 
Senator Warner and the staff of the Committee on Armed Services for 
their efforts in putting together a bill that is, in most ways, a good 
piece of legislation.
  However, S. 3001 also provides authorization for the funding of 
continued operations in Iraq at levels requested by the Bush 
administration and without any provision to either transition the 
military mission in Iraq or to bring our troops home. In my view, 
providing this funding without conditions, without strings attached, is 
unacceptable.
  In my view, the Congress should not continue to write blank checks 
for the prosecution of this apparently endless war in Iraq. In effect, 
this bill also provides a congressional authorization to fund the 
continuation of President Bush's policy in Iraq into 2009, without any 
strings attached. Amendments filed that would have limited the mission 
of U.S. forces in Iraq were not even considered during debate on the 
bill. That is truly unfortunate.
  Continuing to prosecute this war at the current rate is straining our 
military to the breaking point. Many units and individuals are enduring 
their third and fourth rotations to Iraq, and because no limits have 
been placed on the mission or force levels, there is no end in sight, 
despite efforts to declare the surge a success in bringing stability to 
Iraq. More and more military analysts are warning that the U.S. Armed 
Forces are at risk for becoming a ``hollow force,'' as happened after 
the Vietnam conflict, putting our entire Nation at greater risk.
  Our military commanders in Afghanistan are urgently requesting 
additional and substantial numbers of troops to counter the rising 
violence there, but there are few troops to spare for them. As a 
result, we risk losing whatever gains have been made there, in the 
actual central front of the war on terror and the hunt for Osama bin 
Laden and the al-Qaida organization. We must win that fight, there, or 
face more attacks like the one that took place today against the U.S. 
embassy in Yemen.
  I support our troops and I will not let them to lack for anything 
needed to do their job or to keep them safe. But I cannot countenance 
leaving them in Iraq forever, with no limits placed on their mission 
and no assurances by our commander in Iraq that this war is making the 
United States any safer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all postcloture time 
is yielded back, the pending amendments are withdrawn, and the clerk 
will read the title of the bill for the third time.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a significant second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from 
Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
   My KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 88, nays 8, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 201 Leg.]

                                YEAS--88

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--8

     Allard
     Byrd
     Coburn
     DeMint
     Feingold
     Graham
     Sanders
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Biden
     Kennedy
     McCain
     Obama
  The bill (S. 3001), as amended, was passed, as follows:
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________