[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 154 (Thursday, October 22, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10663-S10687]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010--CONFERENCE 
                                 REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2647, 
which the clerk will report.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       Conference report to accompany H.R. 2647, a bill to 
     authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for military 
     activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe 
     military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2010, and for 
     other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 1 hour 
for debate, equally divided and controlled between the Senator from 
Michigan, Mr. Levin, and the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain.
  The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the conference report on H.R. 2647, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, would fully 
fund the fiscal year 2010 budget request of $680 billion for national 
security activities in the Department of Defense and the Department of 
Energy. This bill is the product of months of hard work by our 
committee, culminating in more than 6 weeks of negotiations with our 
House counterparts. I thank all of the members of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee for the commitment they have shown to the best 
interests of our men and women of our Armed Forces. I want to 
particularly thank Senator McCain, our ranking minority member, for his 
great work throughout the conference. It has been a real pleasure to 
work side-by-side with Senator McCain as we worked through issues with 
our counterparts from the House of Representatives.
  I also want to thank the chairman of the House Armed Services 
Committee, Ike Skelton, and his ranking minority member, Buck McKeon, 
for the cooperative spirit with which they worked with us throughout 
the conference.
  This conference report contains many important provisions that will 
improve the quality of life of our men and women in uniform, provide 
needed support and assistance to our troops on the battlefield in Iraq 
and Afghanistan, make the investments we need to meet the challenges of 
the 21st century, and require needed reforms in the management of the 
Department of Defense.
  First and foremost, the bill before us continues the increases in 
compensation and quality of life that our service men and women and 
their families deserve as they face the hardships imposed by continuing 
military operations around the world. For example, the bill contains 
provisions that would authorize a 3.4 percent across-the-board pay 
raise for all uniformed military personnel--a half a percent more than 
the budget request and the annual rate of inflation; increase the 
Army's active-duty end strength by nearly 30,000, and authorize an 
additional

[[Page S10664]]

30,000 increase during fiscal years 2011 and 2012, if the Secretary of 
Defense deems it necessary to increase dwell time and reduce the stress 
created by repeated deployments; authorize payment of over 25 types of 
bonuses and special pays aimed at encouraging enlistment, reenlistment, 
and continued service by active-duty and reserve military personnel; 
extend the limitation on charges for inpatient care in a civilian 
hospital under TRICARE Standard; enhance the ability of military voters 
to vote by absentee ballot; increase the authorization for the 
Homeowners Assistance Program by almost $300 million to provide relief 
to homeowners in the armed forces who are required to relocate because 
of base closures or change of station orders; and increase the maximum 
amount of supplemental subsistence allowance from $500 to $1,100 per 
month to ensure that service members and their families do not have to 
be dependent on food stamps.
  The conference report also includes a number of provisions to support 
the civilian workforce of the Department of Defense. For example, the 
bill contains provisions that would: provide for the application of 
unused sick leave toward length of service for purposes of computing a 
retirement annuity under the Federal Employee Retirement System; phase 
in locality comparability pay in place of cost of living allowances for 
Federal civilian employees working in Hawaii, Alaska, and other 
nonforeign U.S. territories, so that they are treated the same as 
federal employees in other States; terminate the National Security 
Personnel System--NSPS--and replace it with a provision that provides a 
series of personnel flexibilities applicable to the entire civilian 
workforce of the Department of Defense and an opportunity for the 
Secretary to propose additional flexibilities; freeze the Defense 
Civilian Intelligence Personnel System--DCIPS--until an independent 
review can be completed; and authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
establish a new Defense Civilian Leadership Program to help recruit, 
train, and retain highly qualified civilian employees to help lead the 
Department of Defense over the next 20 years.
  The conference report also includes important funding and authorities 
needed to provide our troops the equipment and support that they will 
continue to need as long as they remain on the battlefield in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. For example, the bill contains provisions that would 
provide $6.7 billion for the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected--MRAP--
Vehicle Fund, including an increase of $1.2 billion above the 
President's budget request for MRAP All-Terrain Vehicles--M-ATV--which 
are deploying to Afghanistan; add $100 million for unfunded 
requirements identified by the Commander of Special Operations Command, 
including MC-130 airships to provide improved fire support for our 
ground forces in Afghanistan and Iraq; provide full funding for the 
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization--JIEDDO--to 
continue the development and deployment of technologies to defeat these 
attacks; provide nearly $7.5 billion to train and equip the Afghan 
National Army and the Afghan National Police, so that they can begin to 
carry more of the burden of defending their country against the 
Taliban; and authorize up to $1.3 billion for the Commanders' Emergency 
Response Program--CERP--in Iraq and Afghanistan for humanitarian relief 
and reconstruction projects that directly benefit local communities, 
including up to $50.0 million to support the Afghanistan National 
Solidarity Program to promote Afghan-led community development.

  The bill would implement almost all of the budget recommendations 
made by the Secretary of Defense to terminate troubled programs and 
apply the savings to higher priority activities of the Department. For 
example, the bill would end production of the F-22 fighter after 187 
aircraft; terminate the Air Force Combat Search and Rescue X--CSAR-X--
helicopter program; terminate the VH-71 Presidential helicopter; end 
production of the C-17 airlifter program; cancel the manned ground 
vehicle portion of the Army's Future Combat Systems program, with 
assurances those funds will be available for the newly designed vehicle 
portion--ground vehicle portion; terminate the Multiple Kill Vehicle 
program; cancel the Kinetic Energy Interceptor and we cancel the second 
Airborne Laser prototype aircraft.
  Finally, the bill contains a number of provisions that will help 
improve the management of the Department of Defense and other Federal 
agencies. For example, the bill contains provisions that would enhance 
the ability of the DOD inspector general to conduct audits and 
investigations by authorizing the IG to subpoena witnesses to provide 
testimony; improve DOD financial management by requiring the Department 
to engage in business process reengineering before acquiring new 
information technology systems and submit regular reports on its 
progress toward auditable financial statements; require the Department 
to develop a comprehensive plan to address longstanding problems in its 
inventory management systems, which lead it to acquire and store 
hundreds of millions of dollars worth of unneeded items; place a 
moratorium on public-private competitions under OMB Circular A-76 until 
the Department complies with existing statutory planning and budget 
requirements relevant to such competitions; and streamline and 
restructure DOD management positions by eliminating 22 of the 28 
current Deputy Under Secretary of Defense positions and requiring the 
Department to develop a new organizational plan within 6 months.
  The conference report incorporates two pieces of legislation from in 
the Senate-passed bill: the Military Commissions Act of 2009 and the 
Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
  The Military Commissions Act of 2009 would replace, and dramatically 
improve, the procedures enacted in the Military Commissions Act of 
2006. In its 2006 decision in the Hamdan case, the Supreme Court held 
that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to the 
Guantanamo detainees and requires that the trial of those detainees be 
conducted in a manner consistent with the procedures applicable in 
trials by courts-martial.
  The Supreme Court concluded that this requirement ``is not an 
inflexible one; it does not preclude all departures from the procedures 
dictated for use by courts martial. But any departure must be tailored 
to the exigency that necessitates it.''
  The Military Commissions Act of 2006 created a cloud over the use of 
military commissions because it failed to live up to that standard. The 
conference report would address this problem by, one, precluding the 
use of coerced testimony; two, limiting the use of hearsay testimony; 
three, establishing new procedures for handling classified information 
similar to procedures applicable in civilian courts; four, providing 
defendants with fairer access to witnesses and documentary evidence; 
and five, requiring the defendant to be provided with appropriate 
representation and adequate resources.
  The Military Commissions Act of 2009 is intended to meet the standard 
imposed by the Supreme Court's ruling in Hamdan and should help ensure 
that convictions obtained through military commissions will hold up on 
appeal and will be perceived as fair by the American public and by the 
rest of the world.
  I thank Senators McCain and Graham as well as the lawyers at the 
White House, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Justice, 
who worked with us and for the great effort they put into this 
provision.
  The conference report incorporates the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. 
Similar provisions have been previously adopted by both the Senate and 
the House of Representatives. This legislation is intended to help 
deter people from being targeted for violent attacks because of race, 
religion, disability, gender, or sexual orientation, among other 
aspects. The Senate adopted the hate crimes legislation when we adopted 
the Defense Authorization Act, and it was kept in conference. The House 
of Representatives has now adopted the conference report, and so it is 
now hopefully going to be before us after a cloture vote.
  The hate crimes legislation includes, for the first time, a provision 
that makes it a Federal crime to attack a member of the U.S. Armed 
Forces on account of his or her military service--a hate crime that is 
of particular interest to the armed services.

[[Page S10665]]

  According to the FBI, the trend is up for hate crimes based on sexual 
orientation. There has been a 6-percent increase in such crimes in the 
most recent year for which statistics are available, which is the year 
2006. This is a category of hate crimes that would be covered for the 
first time by this bill.
  The language has been written to ensure it does not intrude on first 
amendment rights, that State and local law enforcement retain the 
primary jurisdiction over investigations and prosecutions.
  We all know Senator Kennedy was long the Senate's leading advocate 
for hate crimes legislation. As he said when the Senate debated and 
passed this legislation in 2007:

       America has taken many steps throughout our history on a 
     long road to becoming a more inclusive Nation, and our 
     diversity is one of our greatest strengths. Our tolerance for 
     each other's differences is part of the lamp that can help 
     bring light to a world which is enveloped in bigotry and 
     intolerance.

  The enactment of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act through this, which 
is the last National Defense Authorization Act in which Senator Kennedy 
participated in his 26 years of service on the Armed Services 
Committee, would be a fitting tribute to one of the truly great 
Senators in the history of this body.
  Finally, I thank Senator Leahy for the leadership role he has played 
on this issue in his capacity as chairman of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee.
  As of today, we have almost 130,000 U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, 
and marines on the ground. Over the course of the next fiscal year, we 
will undertake the difficult task of drawing down these numbers--these 
are numbers in Iraq--while maintaining security and stability on the 
ground. At the same time, we have dramatically increased our forces in 
Afghanistan, with more than 60,000 engaged in increasingly active 
combat and combat-support operations, with more on the way.
  This conference report includes numerous provisions that need to go 
into effect immediately to ensure that they benefit our troops 
immediately. These provisions cannot be implemented before this 
conference report is enacted but will go into effect, without the need 
for appropriations, immediately upon enactment.
  They include the following in the area of compensation and benefits. 
The conference report includes provisions that would prevent the 
implementation of large increases in the copayments military retirees 
must pay for in-patient care at civilian hospitals under the TRICARE 
Program; provisions which would authorize new special compensation for 
caregivers of catastrophically injured servicemembers; and a provision 
which will increase the maximum amount of supplemental subsistence 
allowance to ensure servicemembers do not have to rely on food stamps 
to meet their nutritional needs. Those important provisions and others 
which I am going to now talk about will not go into effect until this 
conference report is enacted.
  With regard to our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the conference 
report includes provisions that will immediately go into effect without 
the need for appropriations.
  For instance, there is a provision which would authorize the 
Secretary of Defense to transfer defense equipment that would otherwise 
be withdrawn from Iraq and transfer it to the security forces of Iraq 
and Afghanistan, their national forces. The use of that equipment by 
those national forces in Iraq and Afghanistan will assist in the 
transfer of security responsibilities to the Iraqi forces and the 
growth of the Afghan Army and police forces more quickly.
  Another provision which will go into effect immediately upon 
enactment would allow the Secretary of Defense to use funds from the 
CERP in Afghanistan to pay for reintegration programs to separate local 
Taliban fighters from their leaders. This is a new program modeled on 
the Sons of Iraq Program which was so successful in getting large 
numbers of young Iraqis who had been attacking us to switch sides and 
support the government. These are two programs which I think people 
strongly support regardless of their position on the question of 
strategy and the troop levels. Those provisions will make it possible, 
immediately upon enactment, to use funds to support the reintegration 
of those young Afghans into their civilian life, just the way we did 
with the Sons of Iraq.
  This provision will permit the shipping of equipment that is so 
important to strengthen the Afghan Army and police from Iraq instead of 
bringing it home. These are critically urgent provisions, particularly 
in Afghanistan.
  Another provision, as soon as a conference report is enacted, would 
permit the Secretary of Defense to use up to $500 million in operations 
and maintenance funds to meet urgent military construction needs of the 
commander of the Central Command in Iraq and Afghanistan that were not 
previously forecast. But these new authorities are not there until the 
conference report is enacted.
  As I mentioned earlier, this bill includes the Military Commissions 
Act of 2009, which is needed to make trial of detainees by military 
commissions a viable alternative to trial in Federal court. Until it is 
enacted, any conviction obtained before a military commission will be 
at serious risk of being overturned on appeal. For that reason, the 
administration has suspended all military commission trials until this 
language goes into effect.
  We have enacted a defense authorization bill every year for almost 50 
years now. We have done so because Members of Congress have understood, 
on a bipartisan basis, the importance of supporting our troops and 
making the policy decisions that are necessary to support them. This 
year is no different.
  With almost 200,000 men and women of the Armed Forces currently 
serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and many more supporting them and 
engaging in other demanding activities on our behalf and their behalf 
around the world, we cannot afford not to enact this legislation.
  For all these reasons, I would urge our colleagues to vote for 
cloture on the conference report and then to adopt the conference 
report itself.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Today, the Senate begins consideration of the conference report to 
accompany this year's national defense authorization bill providing our 
soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and their families with the support 
they need and deserve. This is a responsibility I do not take lightly, 
especially during a time of war. It is a responsibility my good friend 
and colleague Senator Levin understands very well. I thank and commend 
Senator Levin for his skill in shepherding this bill through the 
conference process in a bipartisan fashion. I thank Senator Levin for 
his leadership. I thank him for his commitment to the men and women who 
are serving in the military and the long relationship we have enjoyed 
working together as colleagues in that effort.
  The conference report largely supports the defense priorities laid 
out by Secretary Gates and authorizes over $550 billion in base program 
funding for the Department of Defense and the national security 
programs of the Department of Energy.
  Additionally, the legislation authorizes over $129 billion in 
overseas contingency operations funding for ongoing activities in Iraq, 
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other regional operations and support of the 
war on terrorism.
  The conference report demonstrates our bipartisan support for the men 
and women of the Armed Forces and their families and provides them with 
the pay, benefits, equipment, and training they need and deserve.
  The report increases benefits for our wounded warriors and provides 
an across-the-board pay raise for our military.
  The report terminates production of the F-22 aircraft, contains no 
funding for additional C-17 cargo aircraft, provides full funding for 
procurement of 30 Joint Strike Fighters, and fully authorizes funding 
to train and equip the Afghan National Army and police forces.
  I am disappointed that we are unable to eliminate funding for the 
continued development of the alternative engine for the Joint Strike 
Fighter. As Secretary Gates said, ``This program is unnecessary and 
could disrupt the overall

[[Page S10666]]

JSF Program by diverting resources away from efforts needed for the 
continuation of that program.''
  During the more than 20 years Senator Levin and I have worked 
together, we have had our share of respectful disagreements, and this 
year is no exception. I strongly disagree with the majority's decision 
to include hate crimes legislation in the national defense 
authorization bill. I have consistently opposed attaching hate crimes 
legislation to the national defense authorization bill in years past. 
This year, I again objected to the inclusion of this nongermane, 
nonrelevant language as an amendment to the defense authorization bill 
when the bill was being considered on the floor of the Senate. Today, I 
remain strongly opposed to its inclusion in the conference report. The 
defense authorization bill is not the appropriate vehicle for 
consideration of hate crimes legislation. It is not germane to the work 
of the Armed Services Committee. The stand-alone legislation, S. 909, 
has not even been considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee, where 
it could have been debated, modified, improved, and brought to the 
floor of the Senate. What we are doing here is an abuse of the Senate 
process.
  I also object to the language itself because it would create a new 
Federal crime for willfully causing bodily injury to any person due to 
the actual or perceived race, national origin, religion, or gender 
identity, sexual orientation, or disability of any person.
  I do not believe an expansion of the Federal criminal code is 
necessary to cover a certain class of citizens from ``perceived 
injustices.''
  Let me tell you one of the biggest problems I have here. We have now 
seen a virtual disappearance of authorization bills for various 
functions of government from Senate consideration. We have done that 
because extraneous and nongermane issues have been raised on those 
authorization bills. I don't remember the last time we had 
authorization bills for foreign operations out of the Foreign Relations 
Committee. I don't know when we have had authorization for other 
branches of government. The reason is because they always get bogged 
down in extraneous amendments on both sides. I am not placing the blame 
on the other side. I am placing the blame on both sides. This then bogs 
down the legislation which then, because of the exigencies of time, 
means we are not able to address the proper authorizing process for 
many functions of government. That, then, throws it all into the 
appropriations process. Of course, that is now an enormous shift of 
power and authority and responsibility from the authorizing committees, 
in whom the responsibility should lie, to the appropriating committees 
which are simply only supposed to appropriate money for previously 
authorized functions of government. I worry a great deal about that.
  The only bill that has been consistently passed for many years 
through the Senate and into law is the Defense authorization bill. The 
Defense authorization bill is vital. We are now starting a very 
dangerous precedent by adding a very large and controversial provision, 
which is nongermane and nonrelated to defense, to a Defense 
authorization bill.
  As my friend Senator Levin will point out, there have been other 
times where provisions have been added to this bill which were 
nongermane. Nothing of this magnitude, nothing of the controversy that 
is associated with the hate crimes legislation which was tacked on to 
this bill without any consideration in the committee itself. There was 
no committee consideration. When the bill came to the floor, bang, the 
first amendment out of the box was the hate crimes legislation which, 
of course, tied up the legislation for some days.
  I understand the realities around here. I know what majority votes 
are. I know what majority membership in this body means. It was jammed 
through. I want to tell my colleagues, if we allow hate crimes to be 
added to this Defense authorization bill, what is next? What pet 
project or legislation on the part of the majority leader or the 
majority will be included in the next authorization bill?
  If this legislation is signed into law, it will force police and 
prosecutors to treat identical crimes differently depending on a police 
officer or prosecutor's determination of the political, gender, 
philosophical, or even religious beliefs of the offender. Our legal 
system is based on identifying, capturing, and punishing criminals, not 
on using the power of government to divine biases. Crimes motivated by 
hate deserve vigorous prosecution, and I strongly support punishing 
those who commit such heinous acts under existing laws. Moreover, I am 
committed to a full and transparent debate on the issue. But I strongly 
oppose using the men and women of the military as the vehicle to pass 
this controversial and partisan legislation.
  The Detroit News editorialized:

       Certainly, threats of violence or violence against 
     individuals for any reason should be prosecuted to the full 
     extent of the law. Not, however, because the victims are 
     members of a particular race or sex, adherents of a 
     particular religion or are gay. These crimes should be 
     punished because the victims are uniquely valuable 
     individuals who deserve the protection of the law solely on 
     that basis. The idea of special prosecutions for ``hate 
     crimes'' is inherently divisive.

  I am pleased the conference report does retain some legislative 
language offered by Senator Brownback during Senate debate on the bill. 
The Brownback language clarifies that nothing in the hate crimes 
legislation language shall be construed as an infringement on 
Americans' first amendment rights. Additionally, his amendment ensures 
that nothing in the hate crimes language should be construed to 
overturn ``the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993'' that ensures 
our laws do not substantially burden Americans' free exercise of their 
religion.
  The majority had the votes in July to add hate crimes to the Senate 
bill, and I am sure the majority will again have the votes today to 
invoke cloture on the conference report containing hate crimes 
language. It is indeed, unfortunate, that we are using the brave men 
and women in uniform as leverage to pass hate crimes legislation.
  This legislation should have gone through the Judiciary Committee. 
That is the oversight committee. That is the committee of jurisdiction. 
I know my colleagues who are here on the floor will be justifying this 
legislation on the grounds of how badly it is needed. I say to the 
majority, who controls the legislative schedule here, they could have 
had this bill through the Judiciary Committee and on the floor of the 
Senate and passed in the Senate in the proper fashion and not put hate 
crimes on a bill that cares for the men and women serving in the 
military today. I worry a great deal about the precedent we will be 
setting by including an incredibly controversial piece of legislation 
in the Defense authorization bill which provides for our first and 
foremost obligation, and that is to secure the safety and welfare of 
our fellow citizens.
  Finally, I believe it is important to note that the Defense 
authorization bill has been the only authorization bill that the U.S. 
Congress has consistently passed every year. Other authorization bills 
have often fallen under the weight of provisions inserted into must-
pass bills that are not relevant to the legislation and highly 
controversial. The lives of our men and men serving abroad literally 
depend on our ability to consistently and reliably pass this 
authorization bill every year. I am not willing to take a gamble with 
our troops. For these reasons I cannot in good conscience vote to 
support the motion to invoke cloture on this bill, and I encourage my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Prior to the final vote on passage of the conference report, I plan 
to speak in more detail about the overall bill and the commitment we 
have made in this conference report to do everything possible to ensure 
our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines receive the support they 
deserve and need, as well as a message we need to send those brave men 
and women and their families whom we support and stand behind.
  I will vote against cloture. I will vote for final passage of the 
legislation in deference to our need to care for the men and women who 
are serving. I also would point out that if cloture is not invoked, we 
could immediately pass a resolution reconvening the conference and get 
this bill done today. But that is not going to happen, unfortunately.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

[[Page S10667]]

  Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I did not sign the conference report on 
this legislation. I did not do it for a number of the same reasons 
articulated by the Senator from Arizona.
  There are some good provisions in this bill. It does increase the 
size of our military, the Army, Marines, Air Force, and the Navy. 
Specifically, it authorizes 30,000 new additional Army troops through 
fiscal years 2011 and 2012 but provides no funding, which means the 
Army is going to have to take it out of its hide somewhere else. This 
concerns me.
  It does provide a pay raise. That is good. It improves TRICARE 
eligibility. It adds eight congressionally appointed members to the 
independent panel that will consider the Quadrennial Defense Review. 
That was a program of Senator Thune's. It does do that. That is good.
  It provides $350 million to train and equip. Train and equip has been 
one of my favorite programs for a long period. It is one that we are 
getting the most out of right now. I am pleased that is in there. It 
also adds some funding for the new AFRICOM, African Command. It used to 
be divided into three different commands--the European command, the 
Pacific command and Central Command--but now it is in one. However, 
even though AFRICOM is good, and General Ward is doing a great job, it 
was not adequately funded in terms of resources. Now it is much better. 
We have extra funding in there.
  Having said that, I would have to say that on modernization and the 
things I have been trying to do since I have been serving in this body 
and on the Armed Services Committee, military modernization has been 
kicked down the road. It seems all we ever do around here is take care 
of what is on fire at any given time.
  President Obama said, in his February 2009 speech to a joint session, 
that he would push for removal of Cold War era equipment we do not 
need. I agree with that statement. That is not what this legislation 
does though. We are still using the Bradley fighting vehicle and the M1 
Abrams tank, both developed in the 1970s and 1980s. The Army's Paladin 
howitzer was developed in the 1950s back when I was in the Army. We do 
have the Paladin Integrated Management, P.I.M., program to upgrade it 
but, nonetheless, there is no current modernization plan to replace 
that cannon. It terminates the C-17 program. Fortunately, we were able 
to get some things in Defense appropriations to correct that and add 
funding for additional C-17s. It terminates the F-22 program. I can 
remember when that program was first introduced. We were going to have 
some 900 aircraft. As it turned out, that was dropped down to 750 and 
has now been reduced to purchasing only the 187 aircraft already 
produced. Let's keep in mind that the F-22 is the only fifth-generation 
fighter we have, and other countries--China and Russia--are cranking 
theirs out now.
  I think the worst part of this, though, was what they did to our 
missile defense system. The chart is complicated but it shows that 
during the boost phase, we have two capabilities--the airborne laser 
and the kinetic energy interceptor. Those were, for all practical 
purposes, terminated with this bill. That is the easiest and earliest 
phase to knock down an incoming missile, if you can get it during the 
boost phase. It cut down the number of missile interceptors in Alaska 
and California from 40 to 33. But to me the worst part is--and we have 
talked about this on the floor over and over--it eliminated our ground-
based interceptor capability that was ongoing in Poland and the Czech 
Republic. I was there when this European plan was first being 
discussed.. I talked to the Polish Parliament as well as the Czech 
Parliament to encourage them to let us have that capability. I remember 
a member of the Parliament asked me: Are you sure that if we do this 
and take a controversial position in allowing an interceptor capability 
to take place, that America won't back down? I said: I am absolutely 
certain we won't. Obviously, we did back down. I am very much concerned 
about that. I wish there were time to go into it. There is not.
  I will say this: We are pretty well protected with our capability, 
even though they decreased the number of interceptor missiles in Alaska 
and California in this legislation. But the interceptor missiles based 
in Alaska and California are intended to protect against missile 
threats from the west of the United States from Asia. Something coming 
from the East is a different situation. We needed this added capability 
and protection. I know the administration says that we already have the 
capability of knocking down a short and medium-range hostile missiles 
with our PATRIOT missiles, our THAAD system and our SM-3. The problem 
with that is, those systems do not adequately address the long-range 
missile threats from nations like Iran. Our intelligence says Iran is 
going to have a long-range missile capability by around 2015. If we had 
stayed with our program to have this capability in Poland and the Czech 
Republic in advance of that, we would have the capability of knocking 
down an ICBM coming toward the United States.
  As it is now, we will not have until around 2020. If our intelligence 
estimate is right, that means we have a 5-year period, between 2015 and 
2020, where we are pretty much naked on the east coast and Europe 
against long-range missile threats.
  Let me ask, because I know there is another Senator who wants part of 
this time, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 11\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. I am very much concerned about some of the other things 
that have been approached in this legislation. One is the lack of 
testing capability for our existing stockpile of nuclear capability.
  I am concerned about the additional money, some $560 million, to 
continue development and procurement of the alternate engine for the F-
25 Joint Strike Fighter. We debated this over and over again. The end 
result would be, if this continues in the way it is right now, it would 
eventually knock us down by about 50 F-35 aircraft. This is something 
that should not take place.
  While this authorization bill does prohibit the Gitmo detainees 
coming into the United States, it does allow for detainees to be 
transferred into the United States 45 days after the President has 
submitted a plan to Congress. It does not say that Congress has to 
approve the plan, just that they must submit the plan to Congress. 
Anytime I look at what has happened and the capability we have there at 
Gitmo--and to think we would shut it down for no reason I have ever 
been able to determine--that is concerning.
  The last thing I would mention is, if we look at our responsibility 
of defending America, we are down now to a very small percentage of GDP 
compared to where we have been in the past. During the gulf war, our 
defense spending was 4.6 percent. It was 6 percent during the buildup 
of the Reagan years. If this trend continues on the road we are on now, 
it would be at 3 percent of GDP by 2019.
  I would only remind you, Mr. President, we went through this same 
thing back at the beginning of the Clinton administration. As this 
chart shows, this line right here is a baseline. The Clinton budget is 
the red line down there. So we are talking about a degradation of some 
$412 billion in that period of time.
  On the heels of that--I remember so well the jubilant cries that: The 
cold war is over. We don't need a strong defense anymore. I see that 
same sentiment coming on the horizon. I am very much concerned about 
that.
  For that reason, I will be opposing the vote we will be facing in a 
short period of time. There still is time to send this back to 
conference and get some of those things taken care of. I would 
encourage our colleagues to give us the opportunity to do that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, very briefly, I yield myself just 1 minute. 
There is no conference to send this back to. The conference, by rules, 
has been disbanded.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am frustrated and disappointed that I 
would be in a position to vote against

[[Page S10668]]

cloture on this legislation. I have been a member of the Armed Services 
Committee now for 12 years. I have voted in favor of passing the 
National Defense Authorization Act each of those 12 years. I am 
particularly concerned that I would feel compelled to oppose the 
passage of this conference report this year.
  I will vote against cloture because I am deeply troubled that we are 
moving away from the longstanding tradition of passing bipartisan 
legislation that sets aside partisan politics in favor of providing 
funding for our men and women in uniform. I am sad to say that in this 
case the desires of a few have overridden that tradition. The result of 
that decision is before us in the conference report.
  The inclusion of the controversial language of the hate crimes 
legislation, which is unrelated to our national defense, is deeply 
troubling. I think we will be setting a dangerous precedent by 
including such extraneous legislation on a most important authorization 
bill the body passes every year.
  I count myself as an ally of our men and women in uniform. I work for 
them, feel compelled to support them in every way possible. I certainly 
do not mean to disrespect them and all the good things that are in this 
bill. But let me just say, one reason we have had such good support for 
the Defense authorization bill and are able to pass it every year, when 
bills like the foreign relations authorization bill almost never pass 
because that bill and so many other authorization bills get larded up 
with all kinds of pork and special interest, extraneous legislation, 
and they become so controversial they do not pass--our unwritten but 
firm principle has been: Let's keep the Defense bill a clean bill that 
focuses on our men and women in uniform. And just because you or some 
Senator in the body has a piece of legislation they strongly favor, 
that does not mean it should be added to the Defense bill, because 
others may feel just as strongly in opposition. So it creates a real 
problem for us.
  I will just say that the train on which this Defense bill annually 
moves forward is a powerful engine. It has always been known that if 
you are able to get your legislation on the Defense bill, then few 
Senators are going to vote against it even if they do not agree with 
that particular piece of legislation. They want to vote for the Defense 
bill.
  In a bipartisan way, we have recognized--and not perfectly--if we 
want to make sure this bipartisan strength and support for our men and 
women in uniform and our national defense is maintained, we do not need 
to load up that train with extraneous, controversial pieces of 
legislation. That is a great disappointment to me.
  I hope by raising this objection clearly--and I appreciate Senator 
McCain doing so--we will begin to send a message that: Let's not do 
this again because it can endanger the success we have had over the 
years.
  This legislation was included despite the opposition of both the 
chairman and the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee 
and certainly the ranking member of the Senate committee, Senator 
McCain. It is my understanding that the leadership--I guess the Speaker 
and the majority leader are the ones who insisted this legislation, 
this hate crimes bill, be added to it. Specifically, Chairman Ike 
Skelton, the Democratic chairman in the House, on October 8, said:

       Finally, regarding the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, I have 
     said several times that I would have preferred it to have 
     been enacted as a stand-alone bill.

  Well, I think that is certainly what we all felt. But somehow that 
did not happen. It has been added to the legislation.
  On July 20 of this year, I gave a lengthy statement I am sure few 
listened to and even fewer read discussing hate crimes legislation and 
the constitutionality of it, the need for it or lack of need for it. I 
pointed out a number of things that I think were very important to 
considering the legislation. One of them I will just note is a report 
by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
  I oppose the legislation. I do not think there was any showing--as a 
matter of fact, there was no showing--of a failure of State and local 
prosecutors to prosecute these cases. I asked the Attorney General 
himself, Mr. Eric Holder, to list the cases he named, and he listed 
five. We checked all those cases in the last 5 years, and they were all 
prosecuted, and most resulted in conviction and jail time. So it is not 
as if these cases were not being prosecuted.
  This has a political dimension to it, frankly, more than a legal 
dimension. Six of the eight members of the U.S. Commission on Civil 
Rights signed a strong letter to the President and to the Judiciary 
Committee opposing this legislation. They went on to say in their 
letter that:

       While the title [of this legislation] suggests that it will 
     apply only to ``hate crimes,'' the actual criminal 
     prohibitions contained in it do not require that the 
     defendant be inspired by hatred or ill will in order to 
     convict. It is sufficient if he acts ``because of'' someone's 
     actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, 
     gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.

  The letter goes on to say:

       Rapists are seldom indifferent to the gender of their 
     victims. They are virtually always chosen ``because of'' 
     their gender.
       A robber might well steal only from women or the disabled 
     because, in general, they are less able to defend themselves. 
     Literally, they are chosen ``because of'' their gender or 
     disability.

  The letter goes on to say that this piece of legislation would make 
every rape in America be declared a crime under this bill because it is 
an act against someone because of their gender.
  So on the merits, I am concerned about the legislation. I am 
concerned about its constitutionality. There is a lack of interstate 
nexus. Unlike the 1968 Civil Rights Act--which was needed and did fill 
a gap because there was clear proof that serious crimes committed 
against African Americans and other minorities were not being 
prosecuted. They had proof of that and could show that. So the Federal 
legislature, through narrowly crafted legislation to protect the 
movement and free exercise of civil rights by minorities in this 
country, passed a civil rights bill that I think has been upheld as 
constitutional. But this bill is much broader, much less narrowly 
tailored, and much less defensible.
  So I will just say, Mr. President, I am proud we have a good pay 
raise in the legislation. I am proud there are some good things in it. 
I am disappointed, as Senator Inhofe said, about the missile defense 
issue and the lack of funding to update our nuclear stockpiles, which 
is becoming a critical issue. Overall, I am supportive of the 
legislation, want to be supportive of it, but I want to be crystal 
clear that we should not head down this road where we allow the 
addition, through a defense bill, of controversial legislation such as 
this.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority's time has expired.
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. How much on the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority's time has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am going to be very brief and will not 
use the 10 minutes, unless there is somebody else who wishes to speak 
in support of the motion to invoke cloture.
  I yield myself, Mr. President, 6 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Just very briefly, let me say that the Senate has adopted 
hate crimes legislation on a defense authorization bill, I believe, 
three times. This is not the first time we would do this. It is not the 
second time we would do this. So it is not unique. It is not unusual. 
It is not unprecedented.
  It is important that we provide the same kind of protection for the 
additional groups who are being protected under this legislation, 
including groups who would be attacked physically based on sexual 
orientation.
  It would protect men and women in uniform for the first time from 
these kinds of hate crimes. That is something in which the Armed 
Services Committee has a special interest. The language has been 
written to ensure that it does not intrude on first amendment rights, 
that State and local law enforcement retain primary jurisdiction over 
investigations and prosecutions. It would punish violent acts

[[Page S10669]]

only, not beliefs. No Federal prosecution could take place under the 
provision unless the Justice Department certifies that the State in 
which the hate crime occurred either does not have the jurisdiction, 
has asked the Federal Government to assume jurisdiction, or has failed 
to vindicate the Federal interest against hate crime motivated violence 
or that a Federal prosecution is necessary to secure substantial 
justice. Senator Kennedy was the champion of this provision. Over and 
over again, he attempted successfully in the Senate to get this kind of 
language adopted. He pointed out, and I think with eloquence that is 
unmatched, that the values men and women in uniform fight for are these 
kinds of values: the value of diversity, the value of 
nondiscrimination. To say this has no place on this bill, it seems to 
me, is wrong for that reason as well as a number of other reasons.

  We have had strong support for this provision from the Department of 
Justice and from law enforcement groups across the country that want 
this kind of support. The Senate, again, has authorized this 
legislation on the Defense authorization bill and has supported it 
twice before. This is at least the third time now that it is part of 
this bill. There are good reasons for it being part of Defense 
authorization, one of which is the values that are reflected here that 
when the men and women put on the uniform of our country, they fight to 
protect.
  This would be a real tribute to Senator Kennedy for this language to 
be included. I remember going over with him to urge the House to adopt 
this language a couple years ago. The House did not do it then, 
although we in the Senate did do it. But now the House has adopted it. 
The Senate voted on this language just a few weeks ago with, I believe, 
63 votes to incorporate this language into the Defense authorization 
bill. So we have already voted to do this. There is nothing unique or 
unprecedented about doing it again.
  I hope we will invoke cloture. The stakes are huge. When I spoke 
before, I was quoting some of the things this bill will provide which 
are essential.
  Now, some of the things in this bill required an appropriation. The 
Appropriations Committee hasn't acted on--excuse me--we haven't adopted 
an appropriations bill yet. Those things are not going to be held up if 
we don't pass this bill today, but there are a few things that will be 
held up. Our veterans are going to have to pay more for prescriptions 
and copays if we don't act on this bill, and acting on this bill will 
prevent that increase in copays without an appropriation.
  We all talk about the importance of getting to Afghanistan equipment 
that is in Iraq. This bill has language which will permit that to 
happen. There is great disagreement as to what the right policy is in 
Afghanistan, but there seems to be no disagreement that we ought to 
strengthen the Afghan Army. One of the key ways to strengthen the 
Afghan Army is to get them equipment that is currently in Iraq which, 
if we don't pass this bill, is going to have to be shipped back here 
not only at great expense but also denying to the Afghan Army that we 
are trying to build up the kind of equipment that will make it possible 
for them to assert greater control for the security of their own 
country. That equipment cannot be transferred until this bill passes 
because that is nonexcess equipment. The moment this bill passes and is 
signed by the President, that equipment can be shipped to Afghanistan. 
That will protect our troops.
  To try to pass another bill--have the House pass another bill, have 
another conference created if we can get one, have the conference, go 
through the process of conferees--is going to deny and delay an 
essential item going to Afghanistan to help protect our troops and our 
interests.
  We talk a lot about: Why can't we do in Afghanistan what they did in 
Iraq? Why can't we have the Sons of Iraq be the Sons of Afghanistan? 
Why can't we put a policy in place which will attract those young 
Afghans who are on the payroll of the Taliban not because they believe 
in the extreme religious fanatic position the Taliban takes, but 
because it is a check or, more importantly, more accurately, cash they 
can put in their pockets?
  With the Sons of Iraq we were able to wean away from the attackers, 
the people who hated us, 100,000 young Iraqis because we had a program 
which would help to fund that. This bill contains the authorization for 
our commanders to use CERP funding for that purpose. That is going to 
support our troops. Those funds can't be used until the President puts 
his name on this bill. Delaying that jeopardizes our troops, 
jeopardizes our interests, and it is one of the many essential 
provisions in this bill, and until they become law cannot be put into 
effect. But the moment it does become law, if and when it does, it can 
be placed into effect.
  So the stakes on this first vote are great. If we delay adopting this 
bill by not adopting cloture, we are going to be taking a step 
backwards in terms of the support of our troops and our interests in 
Afghanistan and Iraq. The delay is unacceptable. I hope our colleagues 
will vote for cloture.
  I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Under the previous order, pursuant to rule XXII, the clerk will 
report the motion to invoke cloture.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Conference 
     Report to accompany H.R. 2647, the Department of Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.
         Harry Reid, Ben Nelson, Benjamin L. Cardin, Byron L. 
           Dorgan, Robert Menendez, Richard J. Durbin, Charles E. 
           Schumer, Tom Harkin, Evan Bayh, Patrick J. Leahy, Jack 
           Reed, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Roland W. Burris, Edward E. 
           Kaufman, Paul G. Kirk, Jr., Barbara Boxer, Sheldon 
           Whitehouse, Carl Levin.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call 
is waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
conference report to accompany H.R. 2647, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Utah (Mr. Hatch).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) 
would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 64, nays 35, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 326 Leg.]

                                YEAS--64

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--35

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     McCain
     McConnell
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Hatch
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 64, the nays are 
35.

[[Page S10670]]

Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                     Honoring Senator Daniel Inouye

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, our colleague, Senator Dan Inouye, has 
earned, on the field of battle, the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart, and 
the Congressional Medal of Honor. The man we work with on a daily basis 
is an American hero. He has earned the admiration, respect, and trust 
of the people of Hawaii and the entire Nation.
  Today he has reached another milestone. He becomes the third longest 
serving Senator in American history.
  (Applause.)
  Every day since January 3, 1963--46 years, 9 months, and 20 days--
Hawaii has been proud to call Dan Inouye their Senator. There has 
certainly never been a Senator such as Dan Inouye. He holds many 
distinctions no one else can claim or will claim: He has represented 
the people of Hawaii since Hawaii became a State. He was Hawaii's first 
Congressman and is its longest serving Senator. He was the first 
Japanese American to serve in the House and the first Japanese American 
to serve in the Senate and first chairman of the Senate Select 
Committee on Intelligence.
  Just as he today becomes the third longest serving Senator, he also 
ranks third all-time in the number of votes cast in the Senate, behind 
only Senators Byrd and Thurmond. That means the senior senator from 
Hawaii has cast more votes than any Senator west of the Mississippi.
  Today's vote by Senator Inouye, which was the last vote cast--one of 
America's most accomplished veterans, and that is an understatement--
was on the Department of Defense authorization bill. It was his 
15,507th vote.
  The good people of the great State of Hawaii thank Senator Inouye for 
his continued service. The American people thank him for his courage 
and his leadership. I thank him--from the day I entered this body, 
there is no one who has been more cordial, more of a gentleman than the 
man we know who has a Congressional Medal of Honor, Dan Inouye.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I say to my good friend from Hawaii, I 
addressed this issue we are discussing now in my opening remarks this 
morning. I congratulate him for achieving this milestone. He has been 
an inspiration not only to Members of the Senate but to many Americans 
throughout his life, beginning, obviously, with his extraordinary 
service for our country during World War II.
  As I indicated to my good friend, I addressed this earlier today. I 
wish to join with others in congratulating him on this important 
milestone he has achieved today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I also add my voice, support, and praise 
for our colleague, Senator Inouye of Hawaii, who now becomes the third 
longest serving Member of this great body. Dan Inouye has spent his 
life fighting for freedom, democracy, and equality in uniform, as a 
Member of Congress and the Senate.
  Senator Daniel Inouye may be the only American who saw with his own 
eyes the smoke from Pearl Harbor and the black smoke that rose from the 
Pentagon on 9/11. On both of those terrible days, when the Nation he 
loved was under attack, Dan Inouye stood ready to protect and serve 
this great country. I am honored to call him a colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate and bring my aloha 
to my good friend, brother, and colleague, Senator Inouye, on reaching 
this impressive milestone today, becoming the third longest serving 
Senator in U.S. history. His dedication to public service and to this 
great country is an inspiration to me and to many others.
  Senator Inouye has been in Congress ever since Hawaii became a State 
in 1959. He has been here for 46 years, 9 months, and 20 days. He was 
in the House and then joined the Senate 3 years later.
  This historic milestone would be impressive on its own, but it is 
truly amazing when one considers Senator Inouye's background: a Medal 
of Honor recipient who lost his arm fighting for America in World War 
II. He fought for our country while fellow Japanese Americans were 
being interred in our country.
  He then became the first Japanese American in Congress. He has fought 
for our country in battle and in the Congress as well.
  Senator Inouye will continue working for Hawaii and the United States 
for many more years to come. It has been a pleasure serving with him in 
these years representing Hawaii.
  I, again, extend my aloha, my congratulations to Senator Dan Inouye, 
and ask for God's blessing upon him and God bless America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, one thing Senator Inouye has 
established is that you do not have to be a Democrat to love Danny 
Inouye. He is not only revered here for his knowledge and for his 
leadership but for his affection and to all things we care about, and 
people on the other side of the aisle confirm that in their respect for 
Danny Inouye.
  Danny, as we affectionately know him, and I and Senator Akaka are the 
three remaining veterans of World War II in this place. We treasure 
every moment we have together. I particularly am in debt to Danny 
Inouye for his unique capacity to listen, to think quickly on his feet 
and come up with the right answers.
  Danny, we congratulate you. We look forward to your ascension to even 
higher standing with longevity in this body and, quite frankly, I hope 
to be here with you. Congratulations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this day I am reminded how grateful I am 
to the people of Hawaii for honoring me all these years. I just hope my 
work here has returned this great favor they have given me.
  I can think of many good things that have happened, but the thing I 
will always cherish is the friendship of my colleagues--friendship that 
extends on both sides of the aisle. I think that is the way we should 
look upon the Congress and the Senate. Therefore, I am pleased that as 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I can tell one and all that 
out of the 12 bills, 10 were reported out unanimously, 2 with 1 
opposition. That is bipartisanship, and we intend to keep it that way.
  Once again, I thank my colleagues for their many courtesies and today 
they have honored me greatly. Aloha.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, may I inquire, what is the business 
before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The conference report to accompany H.R. 2467.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President I rise, regrettably, to oppose the 
conference report for the fiscal year 2010 National Defense 
Authorization Act. For the record, this will be the first Defense 
authorization bill I have voted against in my 15 years in Congress.
  There are many provisions in this bill with which I agree and 
strongly agree that represent major steps forward in support of our men 
and women in uniform and the national security responsibilities of the 
United States. For example, the bill includes a significant pay raise 
for our troops, re-authorizes numerous bonuses and special pays, 
authorizes billions of dollars of much needed military construction, 
both in the United States as well as overseas, and authorizes $6.7 
billion for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles or MRAPs.
  Also, the bill includes the Military and Overseas Voting Empowerment 
Act, which I worked on in conjunction with Senators Schumer, Ben 
Nelson, Cornyn and Bennett and which was cosponsored by over half this 
body. The MOVE Act is one of the most substantive and comprehensive 
military and overseas voting reforms we have seen in years. It will fix 
a significant problem we have had in this country, that of the men and 
women of our military; who are putting their lives in

[[Page S10671]]

harm's way being denied the ability to, No. 1, have the opportunity to 
vote, and No. 2, to have their vote counted.
  However, the bill includes at least three provisions which I strongly 
oppose, and for those reasons I cannot support this final bill.
  First, the bill includes hate crimes legislation, which I firmly 
believe is unnecessary, irresponsible, and certainly not germane to 
this bill. There is little evidence that indicates that violent crimes, 
motivated by hate, go unpunished in the United States. Every single 
State has criminal laws that prohibit the antisocial behavior addressed 
by hate crimes legislation, including laws against murder, rape, arson, 
assault, and battery.
  I oppose the creation of Federal hate crimes legislation for several 
reasons. First, I do not believe the Federal Government should 
interfere with the criminal laws already on the books in our States.
  Second, this hate crimes legislation would establish a protected 
class of crime victims who would receive special protection under the 
law.
  Finally, we already have laws to prosecute individuals who commit 
violent crimes. Those people guilty of violent crimes against anyone 
should and will be prosecuted under existing law and should be punished 
to the hilt when found guilty. For all these reasons, I strongly oppose 
the hate crimes legislation in this bill.

  Secondly, the bill contains no funding for the procurement of 
additional F-22s. On May 19, 2009, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, 
General Schwartz, affirmed under oath that 243 is the right number of 
F-22s to have in our inventory. Nevertheless, inclusion of additional 
F-22 funding received a veto threat from the administration and funding 
was stripped out of the Senate bill after an unbelievable lobbying 
effort coming out of the Pentagon and the White House.
  I readily acknowledge there is a difference of opinion on this issue 
and that others do not necessarily share my views on this subject. 
However, what I will not acknowledge is that support for additional F-
22s is simply an example of doing business as usual and the influence 
of special interests. Congress is entitled to disagree with the 
executive branch on significant procurement and policy decisions, and 
there are countless examples of where we have done so and history has 
proven Congress to be right. Time will tell, but the F-22 may very well 
be an example of where the supporters of the program were, without 
question, correct.
  I hope we are never put in a position as a country where we once 
again must fight to maintain air dominance, but there is not a single 
weapon in our inventory that ensures that we will maintain air 
dominance other than the F-22. The F-35 is a great weapon system, but 
we now know it is going to be delayed by 2 years.
  It was kind of interesting that the announcement on the 2-year delay 
on the F-35 came out about 3 or 4 days after the final vote on the 
Defense authorization bill on this floor. But the F-35 is an air-to-
ground weapon system that will not guarantee us the air superiority the 
F-22 will. If we are going to rely on 187 F-22s from an air dominance 
standpoint in every potential sector of the world, against every 
potential adversary, it is simply not enough. General Schwartz was 
right when he said 243 is a more correct number. I believe stopping 
production at 187 puts our Nation at high risk in the near to midterm, 
and there is no reason our Nation should accept that amount of risk 
given our global responsibilities.
  Third, section 1041 of the bill provides for the transfer of 
Guantanamo detainees to the United States. While the bill specifies 
conditions for transfer as well as requiring a plan for each detainee 
who is transferred; the bill nevertheless allows for the transfer of 
those detainees. The conditions for the transfer of those detainees are 
similar to those that are present in the fiscal year 2010 Department of 
Homeland Security appropriations bill which I voted against earlier 
this week.
  I made a much more detailed statement at that time about my reasons 
why I was voting against that bill relative to this issue of the 
transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United States, but that bill 
authorized the transfer of detainees to the United States for the 
purpose of prosecuting the detainees or for detaining them during legal 
proceedings. This bill allows the transfer of detainees not just for 
that purpose but for any purpose. This will allow those detainees to 
have access to U.S. criminal courts, which I strongly oppose, because 
these are individuals who were arrested on the battlefield, not by the 
FBI or local police or any other law enforcement agency inside the 
United States. These are battlefield combatants. This also goes against 
the will of the American people and opens up the possibility that these 
detainees may one day be released in the United States. Therefore, I 
cannot support this provision in the underlying bill.
  Mr. President, I strongly support our troops, and I support the 
missions we have asked them to carry out. Shortly, I will be going back 
to Afghanistan for my third trip. I also have been to Iraq on eight 
different occasions, and I get very emotional and excited about the 
opportunity to look our men and women in the eye, with their boots on 
the ground, and tell them how much we Americans appreciate the great 
job they are doing. I am going to continue to support them in every way 
possible. But the fact is, here we have provisions in a Defense 
authorization bill that go against the will of the American people and 
that, frankly, don't have much of anything to do with our troops in 
theater as well as our troops here.
  So, Mr. President, regrettably, I am going to be opposing this bill 
on the grounds of the issues I have outlined.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I am a student of history and a firm believer in 
applying the lessons of history to present planning and to future 
planning. There is no profit--none--in making the same mistakes over 
and over. There is no future--none--in building on a foundation of 
shifting sand. Our military planners and our Afghanistan policy 
analysts, as well as Members of this Senate, would do well to spend 
some time considering the history, the geography, and the cultures of 
Afghanistan.
  Throughout the long centuries, Afghanistan's geopolitical value has 
been its location along the great Silk Road that carried both trade 
goods and armies between Europe and Asia through the forbidding Hindu 
Kush mountains. Afghanistan has limited natural resources. Afghanistan 
has a climate and a geography that produces very little for export. So 
the fiercely--and I say fiercely--independent tribes that populate this 
harsh and barren land have long earned a living instead from the goods 
and the armies that travel across it.
  Tribesmen have used the dry rocky plains and the steep, bare, cavern-
riddled mountains to great advantage--to extort both armies and traders 
for security and shelter or as a base from which to raid.
  In weary succession, rulers and nations have witnessed their dreams 
of conquest and their dreams of empire in Afghanistan dashed. From 
Alexander the Great in 326 BC, to Genghis Kahn in the 13th century, to 
the British in the 19th century, to the Russians in the 20th century, 
no invading army has ever conquered Afghanistan, earning it the 
sobriquet ``Graveyard of Empires,'' the graveyard of empires or, to say 
it another way, graveyard of foreigners.
  In one horrific example, in 1842, the British lost more than 16,000 
troops and civilians in a single 110-mile retreat from Kabul to 
Jalalabad. History tells us--and we had better listen to history--that 
Afghanistan does not take kindly to foreign intervention. Yet--now, get 
this--here we are discussing a proposed counterinsurgency strategy that 
would vastly increase the U.S. presence in Afghanistan in the vain hope 
of spawning the establishment of a Western-style, modern democracy and 
economy in a land that in many areas and in many ways is still frozen 
in the time of Alexander the Great.
  As a junior United States Senator I traveled to Afghanistan in the 
1960s--way back there in the 1960s. Yes, I went to Afghanistan in the 
1960s and, let me say to you, it was an eye-opening experience. Men, 
human beings, were treated like beasts of burden, actually pulling 
carts like oxen. Yes, I saw it. Living conditions were primitive. 
Corruption was widespread. While life in Afghanistan's cities has 
changed somewhat in the intervening decades, many

[[Page S10672]]

of the scenes that I see in the news still look very familiar to me. 
The fundamental changes that are wished for by some NATO and U.S. 
planners, particularly in the least developed rural areas where the 
tribal theocratic Taliban rule is most entrenched, would certainly be a 
long shot--and I mean that, a long shot--and likely will be a long shot 
and quite unwelcome.
  What is really at stake for the United States in Afghanistan? We all 
know that Afghanistan is not a threat to us militarily. The Taliban is 
not a threat to us militarily. Al-Qaida, however, is a demonstrated 
threat to us, with ambitions and a philosophy that must--must--keep us 
vigilant. But the link between al-Qaida and Afghanistan is a tenuous 
link, one based only on the temporary expediency of location, an 
expediency that has already been replaced as the al-Qaida leadership 
has moved and may move again. Building a western style Democratic state 
in an Afghanistan that is equipped with a large military and police 
force and a functioning economy based on something other than opium 
poppies may or may not deny al-Qaida a safe haven there again. It will, 
however, guarantee that the United States--that is us--must invest 
large numbers--not just a few, large numbers--of troops and many 
billions of dollars in Afghanistan for many--not just a few, many--
years to come, energy and funds that might otherwise go toward 
fueling--in other words building and strengthening--our own economic 
recovery, better educating our children or expanding access to health 
care for more of our own people, and yet there are many here in this 
body, many here in the Senate who believe that we should proceed with 
such a folly in Afghanistan.
  I am not one of them. But there are many, I say, here in the Senate, 
who believe that we should proceed with such a folly in Afghanistan. 
During a time of record deficits, some actually continue to suggest 
that the United States should sink hundreds of billions of borrowed 
dollars into Afghanistan, effectively turning our backs on our own 
substantial domestic needs, all the while deferring the costs and 
deferring the problems for future generations to address. Our national 
security interests lie in defeating--no, I go further, in destroying 
al-Qaida. Until we take that and only that mission seriously, we risk 
adding the United States to the long, long list of nations whose best 
laid plans have died on the cold, barren, rocky slopes of that far off 
country, Afghanistan.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, it was a great privilege to be here on the 
floor to hear the remarks of the senior Senator from West Virginia. I 
congratulate him on his remarks and thank him for giving us the 
privilege of hearing his views on Afghanistan.
  One of the most import duties we have as Members of this Chamber is 
to ensure that our troops have the tools and equipment they need to 
succeed. It is an obligation we all take very seriously. I thank the 
chairman and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, 
Senators Levin and McCain, for producing such a balanced and bipartisan 
bill that invests in our Nation's defense and provides, as President 
Obama has said, ``for the few who have borne the overwhelming burden of 
our security.'' Making sure our troops have the very best America can 
offer is absolutely essential to our defense and keeps our military 
second to none.
  I rise today to discuss a provision in this conference report that 
reflects a different source of pride, a source of pride that projects 
another characteristic of America and defines us as a model of freedom 
and equality under the law. These values form a foundation of America's 
strength that is our most enduring asset, both in times of war and 
peace. I rise today in strong support of the Matthew Shepard Hate 
Crimes Prevention Act. With the bipartisan passage of the Defense 
authorization conference report, we will have taken another substantial 
step forward for our values as Americans.
  It has been 10 years since the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention 
Act was first introduced in the Senate. During this period we have seen 
a marked increase in hate crimes. In my home State of Colorado there 
were 156 hate crime incidents reported to the FBI in 2007; 75 of those 
were on account of the victims' race and 32 on account of his or her 
sexual orientation.
  One of these victims was 18-year-old Angie Zapata, of Greeley, who 
was beaten to death in her home in July of 2008. Press accounts 
indicated Angie's attacker said he went after her because he hates 
transgender and gay people. A jury found that the attacker was 
motivated by prejudice based on sexual orientation. The jury's verdict 
marked Colorado's first ever conviction for a hate crime against a 
transgendered person. The crime was heinous and the attacker will 
rightly serve his time because of the laws in my State. Our experience 
in Colorado, which already has strong hate crimes laws on the books, 
serves as an example of how to protect the civil rights of all 
Americans, regardless of where they live.
  Our laws must reflect our values. Communities are threatened anytime 
there is a violent crime motivated by racial animus or by bigotry 
against one's gender or sexual orientation. Hate crimes are serious 
challenges for our law enforcement personnel. They can lead to 
additional crimes, and they can raise the level of animosity among 
communities. These unique challenges have rightly caused Congress to 
become involved. As we learned in the civil rights era, sometimes 
communities need assistance and resources from the Federal Government 
when they have to confront the most emotional and dangerous kinds of 
crimes. The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act is designed to 
help local law enforcement manage these situations and deter hate 
crimes from ever happening in the first place.
  This important law strengthens the current Federal hate crimes 
statute by protecting would-be targets of violence based on gender, 
sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. It closes a 
significant loophole under current law that prevents hate crime 
prosecution when a victim is not engaged in a federally protected 
activity. All victims should be protected, and these crimes should be 
deterred regardless of where or when an attacker may be planning to 
commit a violent crime.
  This legislation also authorizes the Department of Justice to provide 
grants to State, local, and tribal authorities to investigate or 
prosecute hate crimes more effectively. Grants are also made available 
for programs that combat hate crimes committed by juveniles, including 
training by local law enforcement to effectively identify, prosecute, 
and prevent those hate crimes.
  I thank all of those who worked so hard over the past 10 years to 
update our hate crimes laws, particularly the late Senator Ted Kennedy, 
who long championed this cause. In a speech he gave back in 2007 on 
this very subject, Senator Kennedy asked how long those living in fear 
of attack or reprisal would have to wait until Congress did the right 
thing. How long, he asked, would it take for Washington to show that 
violence on account of gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity 
is absolutely inconsistent with our values and as such will not be 
tolerated in the United States of America.
  Today, is Senator Kennedy's answer. Today we send a bill to the 
President that ensures America's enduring principles apply to all 
Americans. Today we approve a bill that, as Senator Kennedy predicted, 
``sends a message about freedom and equality that will resonate around 
the world.'' It is a proud amendment. I urge my colleagues to set the 
right example and pass this important legislation.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, if the Senate votes to pass the 
national defense authorization bill, Congress will at long last pass 
into law the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention 
Act of 2009. It is an important and historic step to reaffirm our 
values as Americans and show that violence against members of any group 
because of who they are will not be tolerated in this country. I am 
proud that this Congress and this administration have made this 
critical measure a top priority.

[[Page S10673]]

  This is a step that has taken far too long. I have been working hard, 
as have many others, for more than a decade since the horrific murders 
of Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., galvanized the Nation. When 
Attorney General Holder testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee 
in June, it was the second time he had testified in support of this 
important bill. A full decade earlier he had testified as Deputy 
Attorney General in support of the passage of hate crimes. Since that 
time, he noted that ``there have been over 77,000 hate crime incidents 
reported to the FBI, not counting crimes committed in 2008 and 2009. 
That is nearly one hate crime every hour of every day over a decade.''
  I offered the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act as an 
amendment to the Defense authorization bill, and I was joined by my 
fellow New Englander, Senator Collins, in the effort. She has taken a 
leadership role on several important civil rights measures and now can 
add this to her long list of bipartisan accomplishments.
  With the passage of this measure, for the first time our Federal law 
will protect a segment of Americans who have been under attack for too 
long. The LGBT community deserves its civil rights just as the rest of 
Americans do.
  I commend Senator Levin for working so hard to ensure that this 
provision would go forward as part of the conference report. I 
congratulate the Senate majority leader, Senator Reid, for his 
essential role in this matter. Yesterday I noted the steadfast 
leadership Senator Ted Kennedy provided on this issue, as on so many 
others, for more than a decade. We think of him as we see his good work 
go forward.
  Earlier this month was the 11th anniversary of the brutal murder of 
Matthew Shepard, a college student who was beaten and killed solely 
because of his sexual orientation. Matthew's parents have worked 
courageously and tirelessly for this legislation, which aims to ensure 
that this kind of despicable act will never be tolerated in this 
country. The bill was named for Matthew, as well as for James Byrd, 
Jr., a Black man who was killed in 1998 because of his race in another 
awful crime that galvanized the Nation against hateful violence. We 
appreciate and honor the important contributions of James Byrd's 
family, as they have worked hard for this legislation.
  As I have said many times, the years since these two horrific crimes 
have made clear that hate crimes remain a serious and growing problem. 
The recent shooting at the Holocaust Memorial Museum showed that these 
vicious crimes continue to haunt our country. This bipartisan 
legislation will help law enforcement respond more effectively to this 
problem.
  I understand that a Senator on the other side indicated that we were 
considering a fully inclusive hate crimes measure today based solely on 
``perceived bias.'' I would note for the record that this measure would 
punish violent acts that result in bodily injury that were motivated by 
hate. Each of these elements needs to be proven to a jury beyond a 
reasonable doubt. So it is just plain wrong to claim that perceived 
biases will be elevated to a crime.
  I understand that some have alleged that this has not gone through 
the Judiciary Committee. In fact, we did consider this legislation at a 
hearing in June. The Attorney General of the United States testified in 
support of the legislation, and we had a thorough debate about the 
merits of the legislation in committee. I would also note that adding 
the hate crimes measure to the Defense authorization bill has occurred 
in the past, as recently as last Congress. Its inclusion this year 
could not have come as a surprise to anyone here.
  This same hate crimes bill also passed the Senate in 2004, 2000, and 
1999. The amendment passed this year in July on a bipartisan vote. 
There has been plenty of consideration and process.
  President Obama has worked closely with us to facilitate the quick 
passage of this vital hate crimes legislation. In his first few months 
in office, he has already acted to ensure that Federal benefits are 
awarded more equitably, regardless of sexual orientation, and now to 
ensure that this hate crimes legislation becomes law. Unlike in 
previous years, we have a President who understands that crimes 
motivated by bias are particularly pernicious crimes that affect more 
than just their victims and those victims' families. I expect the 
President to sign this legislation without delay.
  Hate crimes instill fear in those who have no connection to the 
victim other than a shared characteristic such as race or sexual 
orientation. For nearly 150 years, we have responded as a nation to 
deter and to punish violent denials of civil rights by enacting Federal 
laws to protect the civil rights of all of our citizens. The Matthew 
Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 
continues that great and honorable tradition. Passage of this 
legislation, at last, will show once again that America values 
tolerance and acts to protect all of its people.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico.) The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today with regard to the importance 
of international development efforts in Afghanistan, as well as the 
role of women in that same country. Much of the public debate around 
Afghanistan is focused on troop levels, especially in Washington. This 
is a critical decision on troops, but a focus only on troops ignores so 
many of the crucial elements that will contribute to our strategy in 
Afghanistan; namely, what should be done to help promote democratic 
institutions. That is one question we have to spend more time on. How 
can we accelerate the training of the Afghan security forces? What 
impact does Pakistan have on this conflict? I have spoken about these 
issues in depth. I want to directly address the formidable development 
challenges before the Afghan people and what this means for the 
security environment.
  Let me be clear. We are not conducting development in Afghanistan for 
development's sake. Promoting development has a direct national 
security impact and, if done right, can result in a safer environment 
for coalition troops, as well as Afghan security forces, and it can 
ultimately contribute to stability in the region.
  Before discussing these issues, I want to applaud the extraordinary 
efforts of Senator Kerry, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee, to seek a resolution to the Afghan election crisis. As we 
all saw from news reports, his tireless work over the past few days to 
support the democratic process in Afghanistan renewed the chance for 
much needed legitimacy in the electoral process. I hope the second 
round of the elections will be free from violence and the terrible 
fraud that was seen in August.
  I also want to recognize the work of the Electoral Complaints 
Commission, which meticulously rooted out corruption in the election 
process. Those guardians of Afghan democracy should be commended for 
their work, and I trust they will perform equally well on November 7 
and the days following.
  The development changes facing Afghanistan are formidable. Destroyed 
by 30 years of war, Afghanistan is the third poorest country in the 
world. Large swaths of the country don't have access to roads, 
electricity, water, or prospects for jobs.
  As I discussed on the floor last week, there are some positive 
aspects of the development process already in Afghanistan. There are 
now 6 million children in school, one-third of whom are girls. Basic 
health care now reaches more of the country than ever before. The 
public health care system has made strides in this regard to have 
organizations such as the Pennsylvania-based Cure International, which 
is working to train doctors. The economy has grown at 10 percent a year 
in aggregate terms, and mobile telephones are starting to connect more 
and more people across the country. When this process began in 2002, we 
started at zero. We should not be content with the pace of reform in 
Afghanistan, but we should acknowledge that some progress has been 
made.
  While the debate in Washington revolves around the prospect of a 
troop

[[Page S10674]]

surge, not much has been said about the civilian surge to assist in 
development and diplomatic efforts. I support this important 
initiative, but we must encourage the administration to match this 
international surge with an Afghan surge. We must increase our efforts 
to build the skills and capacity of Afghans to develop Afghanistan. We 
must constantly work to instill the idea that Afghanistan's prospects 
lie not with the efforts of the international community--though we 
should do our part, and we have and we will--but with the talent and 
the will of the Afghan people. It is not only the best way to conduct 
development, it is in fact the only way it has ever been truly 
successful.
  The strong roots of an Afghan-led development process have been years 
in the making. The Government's National Solidarity Program has worked 
to develop the ability of Afghan communities to identify, plan, 
implement, and monitor their own development projects. This model of 
community-based development is essential to building civic ownership 
for the country's future. The World Bank reports that more than 20,000 
communities now have local government consultative institutions or 
community development councils. Afghanistan's Ministry of Rural 
Rehabilitation and Development oversees this effort, which is financed 
by a consortium of international donors. It employs more than 4,000 
Afghan nationals and has developed the skills of 600,000 Community 
Development Council members across the country in planning and 
supervising projects and managing finances transparently. More than 80 
percent of the labor has been provided by communities themselves, 
generating wages for the poor and cutting in half the cost of their 
projects.
  While substantial progress has been made, the National Solidarity 
Plan faces three main challenges: First, the security environment is 
the biggest hurdle to rapid development. Second, the international 
community can play a helpful role in supporting the government's 
efforts to ensure that these structural gains are sustainable. The 
democratic process has begun to take hold in these communities but will 
require years to grow strong roots. Finally, the Community Development 
Councils will need regular assistance in building capacity. As local 
communities start to work together on multivillage projects, they will 
need technical help to implement the projects.
  Afghanistan's development infrastructure is important and represents 
an important effort to mesh traditional community-based decisionmaking 
structures with the official governing structure. In order for these 
bodies to work properly, there must be an important focus on the 
provision of basic services, irrigation, access to transportation and 
the construction of roads, basic health care and education, and access 
to drinking water and electricity.
  Much of the development work on Afghanistan must take place in an 
environment of extreme insecurity. USAID works in countries all over 
the world, but its impressive staff doesn't usually contend with the 
small arms fire, roadside bombs, and the militant attacks that they 
confront in Afghanistan. In the most crucial regions of Afghanistan, 
along the Pashtun belt in the east and south, USAID must operate 
alongside the U.S. military, the State Department, and the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture in provincial reconstruction teams. The 
military forces provide protection for the aid workers and diplomats as 
they seek to implement their projects. This configuration is clearly 
not ideal but has allowed for some development progress and has also 
played a critical role in the overall counterinsurgency effort.
  While there has been significant funding provided for development 
efforts, not enough of the funding is actually reaching the Afghan 
people. Lately, international organizations have been criticized for 
high consultant fees and overhead costs associated with doing business 
in Afghanistan. Some nongovernmental organizations, so-called NGOs, and 
contractors are performing excellent work in extraordinary 
circumstances in Afghanistan. While much of the cost associated with 
their efforts is understandable given the high pricetag associated with 
security and paying quality staff to live in Afghanistan, I do believe 
that more of an effort should be made and must be made to work directly 
with the Afghan organizations where possible to implement development 
programs. This will likely mean an increase in USAID staff to oversee 
implementation of the programs and assure accountability. This would 
also serve in rebuilding USAID's capability to implement programs 
instead of relying upon contractors. Developing the capacity of USAID 
is long overdue. I want to acknowledge Ambassador Holbrooke's work in 
this regard and support his efforts to deliver more of our assistance 
directly to the Afghan people.
  International development experts have highlighted the critical role 
played by women in the security, stability, and development of 
Afghanistan. We cannot expect progress on any of these fronts if half 
of the population is ignored. As I have said before, we have seen 
progress on women's and girls' political participation, education, and 
health since the fall of the Taliban. However, women are still largely 
excluded from public life and economic participation, and they remain 
targets of endemic violence.

  We must support the Afghan Government's efforts to empower women and 
ensure their right to work in both public service and at community 
levels. Promoting the economic participation of women will pay long-
term dividends in terms of education, health, GDP, and even the 
security and stability of their country.
  International development experts in the region have noted that women 
are more likely than men to invest their extra savings and earnings in 
their families, specifically toward much needed education and health 
care, assisting women, whether through small grants, access to credit, 
or skills training as a potential to improve the lives of the entire 
household, including those susceptible to be drawn in by the Taliban.
  Military strategists have focused on this important nexus of 
advancing development for women and security. In a society where young 
men are loathe to make decisions against their mother's wishes, 
convincing mothers that their children have future prospects beyond 
joining a militant group is a key part of our strategy. By working with 
women on a host of development issues, international and Afghan groups 
can have a clear and convincing impact on the security environment 
where our soldiers are operating today.
  In closing, the security challenges in Afghanistan grow more acute by 
the day. We are rightly focused on the question of troop deployment and 
how to stem the tide of militancy across the country. But as we debate 
the merits of our presence in Afghanistan and our efforts to bring 
stability, we must fully account for the developmental shortcomings in 
the country. This, as well as the establishment of durable democratic 
institutions, will most likely be the ultimate determining factor in 
resolving this conflict.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express how pleased I am 
with the inclusion of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 
2009 within the Department of Defense authorization bill. This day is a 
long time coming, and I am proud we have successfully stood up against 
hate crimes in this country. Such acts will not be tolerated in our 
society. The American public supported this goal. According to a Gallup 
poll from 2007, 68 percent of Americans support extending hate crimes 
protection to groups based on sexual orientation and gender identity, 
including 60 percent of Republicans and 62 percent of individuals who 
frequently attend church.
  Hate crimes continue to occur in our country every day. According to 
recent FBI data, there were over 7,600 reported hate crimes in the 
United States in 2007. That is nearly one every hour of every day. Over 
150 of those instances occurred in my home State of Maryland.

[[Page S10675]]

  The passage of the legislation demonstrates that the Congress is 
fighting for people such as Stephen Johns, who was killed at the U.S. 
Holocaust Museum; Lawrence King, a 15-year-old student murdered in his 
high school because he was gay; James Byrd, who was beaten and dragged 
by a truck for 2 miles because he was Black; and for the 28-year-old 
California woman who was gang-raped by four men because she was a 
lesbian. Today, we stand and say: No more. No longer shall we tolerate 
these types of actions.
  During the recent confirmation hearing of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, I 
spoke about the importance of standing against hate. I expressed the 
importance of a Justice and a Court that will continue to move forward 
in protecting civil rights and not turning back the clock. I hope the 
Court will stand with us against such actions and continue to protect 
important civil rights laws.
  According to the recent Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 
education fund report entitled ``Confronting the New Faces of Hate,'' 
hate crimes against Latinos has been increasing steadily since 2003. 
This marked increase also closely correlates with the increasing heated 
debate over comprehensive immigration reform. There was also a 5-year 
high in victimization rates in 2007 toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, and 
transgendered individuals. That number has increased by almost 6 
percent. The number of White supremacy groups has increased by 54 
percent, and African Americans continue to experience the largest 
number of hate crimes, with an annual number essentially unchanged over 
the past 10 years. While religion-based offenses decreased, the number 
of reported anti-Jewish crimes increased slightly between 2006 and 
2007. The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act is a necessary and 
appropriate response to this ongoing threat to our communities.
  Currently, 45 States and the District of Columbia have enacted hate 
crime laws and have taken a stand against hate in their own States. 
Thirty-one of those States have already included sexual orientation in 
their definition of what constitutes a hate crime. Twenty-seven States 
and the District of Columbia prohibit violent crimes based on a 
victim's gender. States have a patchwork of hate crimes statutes that 
leaves gaps which need to be filled in order to have an effective 
response and prosecution of these crimes.
  The Federal Government has a clear responsibility to respond to hate 
crimes. Current Federal hate crime laws are based only on race, color, 
national origin, and religion. We need to include gender, disability, 
gender identity, and sexual orientation.
  Current law also requires the victim to be participating in a 
federally protected activity, such as attending school or voting. Those 
who commit hate crimes are not bound to certain jurisdictions, and 
neither should the people who prosecute them, which is why this 
legislation removes the requirement that a victim be participating in a 
federally protected activity. The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes 
Prevention Act will make sure all Americans are equally protected 
against hate crimes.
  The legislation will provide necessary resources to our State and 
local governments to fight hate crimes. Specifically, it will provide 
grants for State, local, and tribal law enforcement entities for 
prosecuting, programming, and education related to hate crimes 
prosecution and prevention. The bill will assist States and provide 
them with additional resources, not diminish their role in managing 
criminal activities within their own States. The bill supplements State 
and local law enforcement efforts.
  Additionally and most importantly, the legislation was carefully 
drafted to maintain protections for Americans' first amendment rights. 
Nothing in this legislation diminishes an American's freedom of 
religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, or freedom to 
assemble. The Supreme Court has already ruled that such laws do not 
obstruct free speech. Let me be clear: The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes 
Prevention Act targets acts, not speech.
  Hate crimes affect not just the victims; they victimize the entire 
community and make residents fearful. We cannot allow our communities 
to be terrorized by hatred and violence. Today, we hold true to our 
promise for a better tomorrow.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for the 
next 7 or 8 minutes in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Health Care Reform

  Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, in the election of 1912, Theodore 
Roosevelt and the Progressive Party laid out an ambitious platform. 
T.R., as he was referred to, was seeking a third term as President of 
the United States. During his campaign, he called for a minimum wage. 
He demanded child labor laws and believed occupational safety should be 
a priority across America. Today we would take such measures for 
granted, but at the time, nearly a century ago, they were considered 
very progressive.
  However, there is at least one major part of Roosevelt's platform 
that was never enacted. He called for ``the protection of home life 
against hazards of sickness, irregular employment and old age, through 
the adoption of a system of social insurance adapted to American use.'' 
Ninety-seven years ago, Teddy Roosevelt was talking about health care 
reform--but not just any kind of reform, he was talking about a public 
option. He knew even then that the American people needed to have 
quality affordable coverage that can only be provided by a ``system of 
social insurance'' much like the public option we are talking about in 
the current legislation.
  That was the origin of the debate that rages on even today. Since 
that time, nearly every President and Congress has had to wrestle with 
a broken health care system; a system in which costs continue to rise 
even as relative health outcomes keep going down; a system that allows 
insurance companies to hold American families in a vice grip, squeezing 
them for exorbitant profits; a system that affords no choice, no 
competition, and no accountability for the American people. I believe 
that is fundamentally wrong. I believe fixing our broken system is 
nothing less than a moral imperative. I would imagine Teddy Roosevelt 
shared this belief, and since the day he raised this issue in 1912, no 
fewer than 10 U.S. Presidents of both political parties have also 
supported meaningful reform.

  President Herbert Hoover referred to the health care crisis as ``one 
of the most vital problems facing our people today'' and called for 
adequate care for every single American at a reasonable cost.
  His successor in the White House, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, said 
that ``the health of the people is a public concern'' and ``it is clear 
that there is need for a coordinated national program of action.''
  When Harry Truman became President, he also took up this cause but 
quickly discovered that the special interests were a major threat to 
reform. He said:

       I usually find that those who are loudest in protesting 
     against medical help by the Federal Government are those who 
     do not need help.

  I will repeat that, quoting President Truman. He said:

       I usually find that those who are loudest in protesting 
     against medical help by the Federal Government are those who 
     do not need help.

  By the end of his Presidency, his effort had fallen short as well. He 
was defeated by the same kinds of influential groups that are trying to 
distract us even today. After Truman left office, he told friends that 
one of his deepest disappointments was his ``failure to defeat 
organized opposition to a national compulsory health insurance 
program.'' But even then, in the face of those who had an interest in 
maintaining the status quo, reform with a public option was not dead.
  The next President to raise the standard was John F. Kennedy, who

[[Page S10676]]

said that the strength of a nation ``can be no greater than the health 
and vitality of its population.'' He believed swift action was 
necessary. But his time was cut tragically short before he could take 
action. In the decades to follow, it would be his youngest brother, Ted 
Kennedy, the lion of this Senate, who would wage the fight that has 
brought us to this junction in history today.
  But in the uncertain days after John Kennedy's tragic loss, the cause 
of health reform next fell on Lyndon Johnson, who embraced it as 
strongly as any President ever has. He said:

       For a long time in our country, we have considered public 
     support for education [to be a] basic investment, but today 
     we are declaring that the health of our people is just 
     equally worthy of that support, [and] equally important to 
     our Nation's future.

  But the end of Johnson's Presidency was wrapped up in the escalating 
Vietnam war, and Richard Nixon was swept into office.
  President Nixon faced a health crisis not unlike the one we face 
today. Mr. President, 25 million Americans were without insurance. The 
number has almost doubled since then. Costs were escalating, and the 
President knew something had to be done about it. He said:

       Comprehensive health insurance is an idea whose time has 
     come in America. Let us act now to assure all Americans 
     financial access to high quality medical care.

  Some of my colleagues across the aisle find it hard to believe that a 
Republican President made that statement almost 40 years ago. I urge 
them to consult the record for themselves. Back then, members of both 
parties agreed at the highest levels that it was time for comprehensive 
reform.
  So surely we can find agreement today, in the face of a problem that 
has gotten far worse.
  In 1977, when President Carter took office, he said the American 
health care system ``has left us unhealthy and unwell at the same 
time.'' His reform package included a public option. But, sadly, those 
efforts were blocked by the political opponents in Congress.
  Finally, in the early 1990s, President Clinton thought he had victory 
within reach. He called for universal, comprehensive health care and 
said reform must be ``our most urgent priority.'' But, once again, the 
opposition succeeded in delaying and distracting our efforts, and 
reform fell by the wayside one last time.
  When President George W. Bush took office, he recognized that 
America's health care system was broken and in need of reform. He even 
said that ``government has got to take an active role in reform.'' But 
he stopped short of calling for a public plan, and he left our broken 
system much as he found it.
  This is where we find ourselves today. Despite the leadership of 10 
Presidents from both political parties, we are faced with the same 
broken system that has troubled our elected leaders for almost a 
century. Now this momentous question has fallen to us: How will we meet 
this test that so many have failed?
  These 10 Presidents were Republicans, Democrats, conservatives, and 
liberals. If these men had ever met one another, they probably would 
have found little they could agree upon. These 10 people held our 
Nation's highest office at very different times in the last century. 
They faced different challenges, confronted different obstacles, and 
led our Nation through decades of peace and war, ease and unrest, 
prosperity and depression.
  But although their lives and administrations might have been very 
different, there was at least one thing they could all agree on. There 
was one thing all these Presidents agreed on. Every one of them 
supported comprehensive health care reform. Every one of them knew our 
system was broken, and almost every one of them knew some form of 
public option was the right answer. That kind of broad and long-
standing bipartisan consensus is not only remarkable, it is almost 
unheard of in American history.
  Let us take up this cause as our own. Let us make good on the promise 
first articulated by Teddy Roosevelt almost 100 years ago and supported 
by so many people since then. When President Barack Obama came to 
office less than a year ago, he vowed to succeed where so many of his 
predecessors had failed. He became the 11th President in the last 100 
years to take up the challenge of health care. Thanks to his 
leadership, I have faith there will not need to be a 12th President to 
work on this issue. This time, we will not fail. We will not fall short 
on this issue.
  At long last, it is time to heed this call. The weight of history and 
of consensus cannot be denied and it can no longer be ignored. We must 
pass meaningful health care reform that includes a public option. Our 
Nation has been debating this issue for nearly 100 years. Now is not 
the time to back down. We have talked for a century. So let us now act 
with conviction.
  Friends, colleagues, fellow Americans, once again, our time has come. 
We must cast aside the tired constraints of partisanship and work 
together on behalf of the hardworking Americans we swore to represent. 
Eleven Presidents have stood up for health care reform, and now, 
colleagues, it is our turn. Let us succeed where our predecessors have 
failed, and let us write this history. Let us serve the sacred trust 
the American people have placed in us, not merely as political leaders 
but as lawmakers.
  Colleagues, let us be statesmen. After 11 Presidents and nearly 100 
years, it is time to vote for health care reform that includes a public 
option. It is time to stand up for the American people.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Debt and Deficits

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to speak about one of the most 
significant issues we have confronting us as a nation, our rising 
deficits and debt. At the end of the last fiscal year, which just 
concluded at the beginning of October, end of September, we determined 
we had a $1.4 trillion deficit--$1.4 trillion.
  It is projected that we will have trillion-dollar deficits for the 
next 10 years under the President's budgets as President Obama has 
brought them forward. Yesterday we had a vote not to do cloture on a 
bill the administration supported, and which was brought forward here, 
which would have put another $300 billion onto the Federal debt to pay 
for what is known as the doctors fix.
  The doctors fix is something which should occur. We have done it 
around here before. We have done it every year for about 8 years; that 
is, reimbursing doctors at a fair rate rather than having their rates 
cut. But we have always paid for it.
  But yesterday there was an attempt by the leadership on the other 
side of the aisle to pass a bill which would have not paid for the 
doctors fix and which would have put $300 billion of new debt onto our 
children's backs; so that every time somebody walked into a doctor's 
office and was reimbursed under Medicare, that bill, whether it was for 
a flu shot or whether it was for serious disease issues, would have 
been taken and passed directly to our children rather than paid for 
today, as it should have been. So it was a totally irresponsible act to 
try to increase the debt by $300 billion in order to take care of the 
doctors fix. But that was what was attempted. Fortunately that failed. 
At least as of yesterday it failed.
  There was bipartisan appreciation in the Senate. All of the 
Republicans voted against doing that, and 12 Democrats and 1 
Independent voted against doing it, and that was good. That was a good 
sign to the American people that maybe we are finally taking the 
deficit and the debt seriously.
  The reason I wanted to speak today on this matter is because we are 
getting some significant warning signs, some flashing yellow lights 
that are moving from yellow, maybe, to red from the world community 
that we better do something about our debt and our deficit or the world 
community is going to react to it.
  About 4 months ago now the Chinese, who are the primary owners of our 
debt--in other words, when we spend $1.4 trillion more than we have in 
a year like we did last year or we spend $1 trillion more than we have 
every year for the next 10 years as is being

[[Page S10677]]

proposed by the President, we have to get that money from somewhere. We 
have to borrow it from somebody. Someone has to be willing to lend us 
that money, that $1 trillion, that $1.4 trillion.
  Well, the countries that have that type of money and are willing to 
lend it to us are countries such as China and Russia and Saudi Arabia. 
They have surpluses in their economies. They are not running deficits 
in their governments, so they have surpluses. They have, historically, 
at least over the last few years, been willing to buy our treasuries, 
our notes to finance the government operation in the United States.
  About 4 months ago the leadership of the Chinese Government said: 
Well, we are getting a little concerned. We are still going to buy 
American treasuries. We are still going to help you finance your 
deficit. But you have to do something about this because we are 
concerned about the value of what we are buying. We are concerned that 
those IOUs we are buying from you may not be worth what we are paying 
for them on face value if you continue to run your deficit that you 
have.
  That was a fairly large warning sign from a country which obviously 
has not historically been close to us but which is one of our largest 
trading partners, and which is, whether we like it or not, buying up 
all of this debt when we run these massive deficits, or a lot of this 
debt.
  Another warning sign came at us when the dollar, which has 
historically been the reserve currency of the world--in other words, 
countries hold dollars in order to maintain their own structure of 
reserves for their countries. The dollar started to be discussed as 
maybe not the best reserve currency, and there have been a number of 
rumors and some representations by some Finance Ministers around the 
world that people might not want to use the dollar any longer as their 
reserve currency. They may want to use some other currency--maybe the 
euro or some basket of currencies, maybe the euro, the yen, or maybe 
just use commodities or maybe use IMF drawing rights, a whole series of 
different ideas.
  What does that reflect? That reflects that people are not too 
confident in our future ability to maintain and defend the value of the 
dollar. Why are they not confident about that? Well, they are not 
confident about it because they are looking at the deficits we are 
running. They are looking at the debt we are piling up, and they are 
saying: Hold it. How are you going to pay all of that off? If you put 
$13, $14, $15, $16 trillion worth of debt on your Nation, if you take 
your public debt from 38 percent of GDP up to 80 percent of GDP or 
more, how are you going to pay that off, United States?
  That is a legitimate question because there are only a few ways it 
can be paid off. One of them, unfortunately, is by using inflation, and 
that devalues the dollar and it devalues all of that debt people have 
bought. That is why we are hearing more and more that people, first, 
are worried about using the dollar as their reserve currency because 
they do not want to see its value drop; and, secondly, they are worried 
about buying our debt.
  So we are getting some serious caution lights from the international 
community about the fact that we are running these massive deficits and 
this massive debt. Just yesterday, I think one of the most serious 
caution lights came out because there are groups in this world, small 
groups of people--Moody's and Standard & Poor's--who basically look at 
the currencies and the debt of various nations and they do that also 
for companies and they rate the debt. The rest of the world's financial 
activities look at those ratings because they are considered to be of 
very high caliber and very high standard. They allow people in other 
places to be able to assess the value of the debt they might want to 
buy.
  So if you want to buy debt from XYZ country, you look at Moody's or 
Standard, that has taken a hard look at that country's debt, evaluated 
it, and they will tell you whether it is rated AAA, AA, A. That 
determines how much it is going to cost a country to lend to you. That 
will determine the amount of interest rate on that debt because if it 
is not AAA, which is the best rated debt, then people are going to be 
less likely to invest in it. If they do invest in it, they are going to 
want a higher return because they are going to be at bigger risk 
because they know that debt might not be paid back. If it is paid back, 
it might be paid back in devalued dollars or devalued currency of that 
country.
  So, historically, American debt, the Treasury note, has been the gold 
standard for the world. In fact, it is technically the gold standard. 
Most people use it as the reserve fund. When the world went off the 
gold standard, the dollar basically became the way people maintained 
and conserved their assets. They would invest in Treasury notes and 
know that the treasuries were always safe. It was always determined 
that Treasury notes were safe because the United States always was 
going to pay back its debt.
  So the United States has always had a AAA rating. That is hugely 
important to us as a nation. It is hard to appreciate as just an 
ordinary American going to work every day and trying to make ends meet 
that the AAA rating of the United States is important to them, but it 
is. It affects everything in this country that has to do with credit.
  If the United States were to lose its AAA rating, all credit would go 
up, and the costs in this country. It would be much harder to buy a 
house because the interest rates would be higher. It would be harder to 
buy a car because the interest rates would be higher. It would be 
harder to send a child to college because the interest rates would be 
higher. Everything is tied to the fact that treasuries have AAA 
ratings. It has always been presumed that they would.

  In the post-World War II period, it has always been presumed that the 
United States, the strongest economy in the world, the most vibrant 
economy in the world, would always have the gold standard for the debt 
it issues, that it would always be a AAA-rated event. Well, as a result 
of our profligate nature as a country and as a Congress, as a result of 
having run up these massive deficits, we are getting a very large 
yellow flashing light from the rating agencies.
  They are saying this--this was an October 22 news report from 
Reuters:

       The United States, which posted a record deficit in the 
     last fiscal year, may lose its AAA rating if it does not 
     reduce the gap to a manageable level in the next 3-4 years.

  That is according to Moody's Investors Service.

       The AAA rating of the United States is not guaranteed.

  Steve Hess, Moody's lead analyst for the United States, said in an 
interview on Reuters Television:

       So if you do not get the deficit down in the next 3-4 years 
     to a sustainable level, then the rating will be in jeopardy.

  Those are words that should make us in the Congress pause because 
they are directed right at us. The most sophisticated and important 
evaluator of America's deficit situation and debt, Moody's ratings 
service, is saying if we as a Congress do not do something within the 
next 3 to 4 years to bring our debt under control, and our deficits 
down, we may jeopardize the AAA rating of the United States.
  I can think of nothing that would be more irresponsible for a 
Congress to do to the American people than to jeopardize and put at 
risk the AAA rating of this country. Maybe only after disarming 
ourselves in the face of a potential terrorist threat or the use of a 
weapon of mass destruction, I can think of nothing which would have a 
larger impact on our populous than for the Congress to put in place 
fiscal policies which would jeopardize our ability to sell bonds, 
American debt around the world at a reasonable price, and put at risk 
the value of the dollar and the status of the dollar as the reserve 
currency of the world, as a result of putting at risk the AAA rating of 
our bonds.
  That is exactly what we are doing. This gentleman, Mr. Hess, said we 
have to, within the next 3 or 4 years, put in place a manageable plan, 
a realistic plan, that will address the deficit and debt of the United 
States.
  Are we doing that now? We are doing just the opposite. Just yesterday 
this Congress tried to pass $300 billion of new debt for ordinary 
expenses, for daily expenses of paying doctors. We were going to give 
an IOU to our children and our grandchildren 5, 10 years from now. 
Total irresponsibility.

[[Page S10678]]

  Last week it was the White House suggesting we do the exact same 
thing in Social Security for $13 billion. A couple of months ago we did 
the same thing on cash for clunkers for $5 billion. A budget was passed 
by this Congress, which does it for the whole Nation--it creates $1 
trillion of unfunded liability and deficits for the next 10 years every 
year.
  Now we have this health care bill coming at us, which is going to 
increase the size of the government by $1 to $2 trillion, which is 
represented that it is paid for, but that is only because they phase in 
the expenses 4 years after they phase in the income and thus are able 
to match 10 years of income versus 6 years of expenses. So they claim 
it is paid for.
  When the bill is fully phased in, it will not be paid for. It is 
going to be a huge cost to the Federal Government, and even if it were 
paid for, it would be taking massive resources in the area of Medicare 
by $400 billion and it is going to raise fees by $500 billion. Instead 
of using those resources to reduce the debt, it will use them to create 
a brand new major entitlement at a time when we have on the books 
entitlements which we can't afford today.
  Medicare has a $34 trillion unfunded liability. Yet we will add a new 
major entitlement on top of Medicare and Medicaid, and we will pay for 
part of it by cutting Medicare. Still, instead of cutting Medicare for 
the purposes of paying for that, we should be using Medicare savings 
for the purposes of making Medicare solvent. We should not be growing 
the government. We are going to do a $1 to $2 trillion increase in the 
size of government. I will absolutely guarantee that that will not be 
fully paid for and that a large percentage of that will go to our debt.
  On top of having deficits which are already projected to be a 
trillion dollars a year for the next 10 years, we are seeing a Congress 
which is being incredibly spendthrift in its approach to all sorts of 
areas: $300 billion to pay doctors, new debt; and who knows how much 
out of this health care bill. I am willing to bet the family farm that 
it will be well over a trillion dollars of new debt when it is fully 
phased in; new programs in the area of Social Security, which is 
already bankrupt, unpaid for, added to the debt; new programs for this 
favorite group, cash for clunkers or whatever the issue is of the day. 
We are totally out of control on the spending side of the ledger.
  It is not a revenue issue. It is a spending issue. Revenues have 
historically been about 19 percent of GDP. Spending has been about 20 
percent of GDP. But under the budget which we have been given, 
independent of the health care bill, spending goes from 20 percent of 
GDP up to 23 percent. And when we throw in this health care bill, we 
are heading toward 24, 25 percent of GDP. Revenues, if they maintain 
their historic levels once the recession is over, go back to 19 percent 
of GDP, but we still have a 6 to 7-percent gap because spending has 
gone up so much.
  I appreciate the fact that this administration comes with a 
philosophy--and they won the election--that we create prosperity by 
growing the government. The President said that. People around him said 
that. Members on the other side of the aisle say that. We create 
prosperity by growing the government. But we don't create prosperity if 
we let the government grow so fast that it can't be paid for. 
Government cannot be allowed to grow any faster than it can be paid 
for. In my opinion, prosperity doesn't come from the government to 
begin with. Prosperity comes from entrepreneurs who are willing to 
create risks and create jobs. Independent of that philosophical debate, 
the simple fact is, if we allow government to grow a lot faster than we 
have the capacity to pay for it, we create debt. It is that debt and 
these independent people looking at that debt who are giving us these 
massive caution lights and saying: Slow down, get your house in order.
  People who are buying our debt around the world are saying it. People 
who use the dollar as reserve currency around the world are saying it. 
And now Moody's, the clear, independent arbiter of what the value of 
debt is and what its likelihood of repayment is, is saying it in the 
most stark way. The AAA rating of the United States is not guaranteed, 
Steve Hess of Moody's, said. So if they don't get the deficit down in 
the next 3 to 4 years to a sustainable level, the rating will be in 
jeopardy.
  We need to heed those words. We need to get some discipline around 
here, and we need to stop having proposals which dramatically increase 
the size of the government and continue to put us on a path where we 
pass debt on to our children which will cause them to have a much lower 
standard of living than we had and which will cause them to be unable 
to send their children to college, to buy their first home and afford a 
car, because they will be confronting a nation where the debt is 
absorbing so much of the productivity of the economy or where inflation 
has basically priced them out of the markets.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). The Senator from South 
Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the hate crimes 
provision inserted in the Defense authorization conference report, 
first, of course, because hate crime legislation has nothing to do with 
the Defense Department or with national security. Hate crimes actually 
have nothing to do with crimes or with hate. It is very cynical that 
this bill that funds our soldiers, who are fighting for our 
Constitution and our country, actually undermines the very principles 
they are fighting for.
  There are many practical problems with hate crimes legislation. The 
broad language will unnecessarily overextend Federal law enforcement 
personnel. It will undermine the effectiveness and confidence of local 
law enforcement. It will create conditions for arbitrary and 
politicized prosecutions of certain cases.
  I wish to focus on the basic, fundamental problems with any Federal 
hate crimes legislation. The rule of law requires opposition to this 
principle or this idea that we treat crimes differently. Let me first 
state the obvious. Hate crimes are wrong. That is why they are already 
illegal. That is why they are already prosecuted. That is why the 
rights of victims are defended by law enforcement authorities at every 
level of government.
  Strictly as a matter of justice, the hate crimes provision in this 
report is offensive. It suggests that violence committed against 
certain kinds of victims is worse, more in need of Federal intervention 
and swift justice. I am sure most parents of a minority, a homosexual 
or female victim would appreciate the extra concern, but the other side 
of the coin is the implication that these crimes committed against a 
nonspecial person should have less punishment. Where does that leave 
the vast majority of victims' families who, because of the whims of 
political correctness, are not entitled under this legislation to 
special status and attention? How can a victim's perceived status or 
the perpetrator's perceived opinions possibly determine the severity of 
a crime?
  The 14th amendment explicitly guarantees all citizens equal 
protection under the law. But these hate crime provisions create a 
special class of victims whose protection of the law will be, in 
Orwell's phrase, more equal than others. If some are more equal than 
others, some must be less equal. It is, then, inevitable that this hate 
crimes provision will create the very problem it purports to solve.
  This provision will also move our Nation a dangerous step closer to 
another Orwellian concept: thought crimes. It would criminalize certain 
ideas, and those ideas' involvement in a crime will make the crime more 
deserving of prosecution. The problem, of course, is that politicians 
are claiming the power to decide which thoughts are criminal and which 
are not. Canadians right now live under this kind of regime where so-
called human rights commissions, operating outside the normal legal 
process, prosecute citizens for espousing opinions the commissioners 
disagree with. Today in the United States only actions are crimes. If 
we pass this conference report, opinions will become crimes. What is to 
stop us from following the lead of the European countries and American 
college campuses where certain speech is criminalized? Can priests, 
pastors, and rabbis be sure their preaching will not be prosecuted, if 
it says certain things are right and wrong? Again, in Canada, for 
instance, Pastor Stephen Boissoin

[[Page S10679]]

was so prosecuted by Alberta's Human Rights Commission for publishing 
letters critical of homosexuality. Or will this provision serve as a 
warning to people not to speak out too loudly about their religious 
views, lest Federal agents come knocking at their door? What about the 
unintended consequences such as pedophiles and sex offenders claiming 
protected status under this provision as being disabled? There is no 
such thing as a criminal thought, only criminal acts. Once we endorse 
the concept of thought crime, where will we draw the line? More 
importantly, who will draw that line?
  Under existing law, if my own children were attacked in a violent 
crime, justice would demand that their attackers be pursued no more or 
less than the attackers of any other children. We all say we want a 
color-blind society, but we cannot have a color-blind society if we 
continue to write color-conscious laws. Our culture cannot expect to 
treat people equally if the law--if our ruling class--treats citizens 
not according to the content of their character but according to their 
race, sex, ethnic identity, or gender identity.
  I urge my colleagues to consider the implications of what we are 
doing, the raw cynicism of attaching this type of controversial 
legislation to a bill that funds the defense of the country. What type 
of legislative extortion will they consider next? I have the choice 
here to vote for hate crimes legislation that I believe would undermine 
the very justice system of the country or to vote against the defense 
of my country. I don't think we could be more cynical.
  I urge colleagues to oppose this conference report unless and until 
the principle of equal justice is upheld and the report's hate crimes 
provisions are removed.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I would like to make a few comments 
about the Defense authorization conference report, which we will vote 
on, presumably, later this afternoon.
  First, I wish to express my appreciation to the conferees for 
fighting for legislation we passed out of the Senate but which was not 
included in the House version of this bill. This legislation is 
contained in sections 575 through 589 of the conference report, and it 
is called the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act--or the MOVE 
Act--and it addresses a national disgrace.
  Our military servicemembers, we know, put their lives on the line for 
us every day to protect our rights and freedoms. Yet too many of them 
who are deployed overseas face many stumbling blocks and hurdles as 
they attempt to cast their votes and participate in our national 
elections.
  In 2008, more than a quarter of the ballots requested by uniformed 
and overseas voters went either uncollected or uncounted--a quarter of 
the ballots--according to a recent survey of seven States with high 
military populations.
  Another recent study by the Heritage Foundation documented the 
problems during the last election cycle. They looked at 20 States with 
large military populations and concluded that as many as three-quarters 
of our troops and their family members were ``disenfranchised by their 
inability to request an absentee ballot'' and that as many as one-third 
of the ballots that were requested never reached the appropriate 
election officials to be counted on a timely basis.
  Voting has remained a challenge for our troops and their families for 
many reasons. One is our election laws are varied from State to State 
and they are very complex. We also know that multiple levels of 
government bureaucracy are involved--from the local level, to the State 
level, to the Federal level. We know election challenges and other 
unforeseen events can delay the finalization of ballots. We know, with 
the high tempo of military operations, frequent deployments for our 
troops and their families make it hard for them to exercise their most 
fundamental civil right, which is the right to vote.
  What this legislation does--the MOVE Act--is address several of the 
biggest roadblocks our troops and their families face when attempting 
to vote.
  First, the MOVE Act reduces the reliance on ``snail mail'' for 
correspondence between election officials and our troops.
  Under current election laws, many troops must, first, mail a request 
for an absentee ballot. Then they have to wait for the election 
officials to mail them the blank ballot. Then they must mail the 
completed ballot in time to be counted.
  This legislation requires election officials to create electronic 
blank ballots and to post them online to cut down on some of these 
steps. Election officials must allow the use of faxes and e-mails to 
expedite correspondence with our troops. Together, these reforms will 
reduce dependence on snail mail--until the servicemember is ready to 
return the completed ballot to be counted.
  Second, the MOVE Act will expedite the return of the completed ballot 
to elections officials. Under current law, each servicemember is 
responsible for making sure his or her ballot is postmarked and 
returned on time. Our legislation--this bipartisan legislation--
requires the Department of Defense to take possession of completed 
ballots and ensure they get to election officials on a timely basis by 
using express mail, if necessary. This legislation will also require 
election officials to give our troops at least--at least--45 days in 
which to return their ballots.
  The MOVE Act contains many other commonsense reforms that were 
suggested by other Senators and which will help end the effective 
disenfranchisement of our troops and their family members. However, one 
key provision of the bill we passed out of the Senate was modified in 
conference, and I believe all Senators should understand why and how 
that happened.
  The provision I am referring to was in the bill I introduced called 
the Military Voters' Equal Access to Registration Act. It too became 
part of the MOVE Act and was amended to the Defense authorization bill 
as it passed out of the Senate. This legislation was designed to 
provide basic voting assistance services to every servicemember and 
family member upon transfer to a new military installation, as well as 
at other significant transition points in their military careers.
  As part of in-processing at each base, every servicemember was to be 
offered an opportunity to fill out a simple form that would, first, 
register the servicemember or that family member to vote; it would, 
secondly, update existing registrations; and it would request absentee 
ballots for the next Federal election cycle. The Department of Defense 
would have then been responsible for forwarding the completed forms to 
the appropriate election officials.
  This kind of voting assistance may sound familiar because it is 
nearly identical to the motor voter provisions contained in the 
National Voter Registration Act. The logic is that military 
installations can and should offer the same kind of voting assistance 
that their local department of motor vehicles would offer to them if 
they lived at home stateside.
  This legislation makes practical sense because many of our troops and 
their families are transferred quickly and without much notice, and it 
is difficult for them to keep changing the address that local officials 
have on file.
  During the conference process, when we were working with our 
counterparts in the House of Representatives, this legislation was 
watered down, unfortunately, and was made optional for the Department 
of Defense to offer voting assistance to our troops and their families.
  I have to say, I was disappointed at this action because when our 
troops are given orders to deploy elsewhere, obviously, those orders 
are not optional and neither should the requirement of the Department 
of Defense when it comes to helping make sure our deployed troops' 
votes actually count. So it should not be optional for the Department 
of Defense to offer these services to the troops and their families 
when they arrive, as ordered, at their new post.
  I am particularly concerned this legislation was weakened at the 
specific

[[Page S10680]]

request of the Department of Defense. Furthermore, the Department's 
objection was based on a misreading of the National Voter Registration 
Act. In fact, at our request, the Department of Defense's objections 
were reviewed by subject matter experts at the Department of Justice. 
These experts at the Department of Justice agreed with us on the clear 
meaning of the law and that the Department of Defense had made an error 
in interpreting the Senate bill. Unfortunately, by then the damage was 
done and House conferees deferred to the Department of Defense 
interpretation of this legislation and made it optional at their 
request.
  I do not think the Senate should be content to kick a field goal when 
we could have scored a touchdown for the men and women of our U.S. 
military--and we will.
  First, I expect the Department of Defense to implement this optional 
program at every applicable military installation. I will request 
regular updates from the Department on its implementation, as well as 
any explanation for delays. We will not let up until we make sure this 
is complied with.
  Secondly, I expect the Department of Defense to correct the official 
record and to make clear to the Members of the House and the Senate who 
were conferees that its objection to this legislation was based on an 
erroneous interpretation of the law.
  Third, I intend to offer amendments to other legislative vehicles to 
correct this watering down of this important provision--the language 
passed out of this Chamber unanimously--and I will continue to make 
sure it becomes ultimately the law of the land.
  The provisions of the MOVE Act that did make it through conference, I 
do believe, represent a clear win for our troops and their families. 
Many of my colleagues were instrumental in making this happen, and I 
thank all of them. Again, this was a bipartisan effort.
  However, my colleagues in the conference also included language in 
the Defense authorization bill which clearly does not belong in this 
bill and which I do not support. I refer, of course, to language 
addressing so-called hate crimes in the conference report.
  I, in a previous life, was a judge for 13 years and attorney general 
of my State after that. I believe very firmly in the concept of equal 
justice under the law, and I believe crime should not be treated 
differently based on the victim of that crime. I have had the privilege 
of working with many victims of crime and their families, and I share 
their determination that those who commit crimes should be delivered 
swift justice and be held accountable.
  But a fair justice system, committed to equal justice under the law, 
does not distinguish between crimes based on race, gender or whatever 
the category that is included in a particular list. A fair justice 
system, committed to equal justice under the law, does not criminalize 
thoughts or perceptions. It criminalizes behavior. In this country, a 
fair justice system, committed to equal justice under the law, is based 
on federalism, one which respects that State and local law enforcement 
and prosecutors are doing their jobs fairly and responsibly.
  Expanding hate crimes legislation should not be part of this 
conference report. Not withstanding this flaw in the bill, I will vote 
for the conference report but with this reservation. The hate crimes 
provision does not belong in the bill and I believe violates our 
national commitment to equal justice under the law.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Brown are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. BROWN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


          Colquitt Regional Medical Center's 70th Anniversary

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise today to commemorate the 70th 
anniversary of Colquitt Regional Medical Center in my hometown of 
Moultrie, GA. For seven decades, residents of southwest Georgia have 
been fortunate not only to have a state-of-the-art facility but also to 
be served by a hospital that has boasted visionary leadership.
  Back in 1935, the Public Works Administration approved $50,000 for a 
new hospital in Moultrie, but only if the community could match those 
funds. That is when Moultrie businessman W.C. Vereen stepped up and 
pledged $50,000 and, in turn, made his offer contingent on the 
community matching his funds. Thereafter, a grassroots campaign to 
build a hospital was born, at a total of $140,500--a very significant 
amount of money in those days.
  On October 17, 1939, the Vereen Memorial Hospital was dedicated, and 
the first operation was performed a week later.
  From those humble beginnings, the now-rechristened Colquitt Regional 
Medical Center has grown into a comprehensive health care facility, 
boasting medical services that include dialysis, physician offices, 
oncology, and a home health care component, among others.
  It speaks volumes about the community, the camaraderie, and the 
success of Colquitt Regional Medical Center to know that in 70 years, 
this hospital has had only four CEOs, and the first one only served for 
2 years.
  Its first two CEOs--Pierina Egan and Nora Manning, both of whom 
obviously were female--in addition to dealing with the day-to-day 
challenges of managing a hospital, also had to contend with growing the 
facility and coping with a doctor shortage brought on by World War II.
  Ms. Manning was succeeded by Millard Wear, who served as CEO for 14 
years and oversaw the creation of a brandnew 126-bed facility.
  In 1982, Mr. Wear was succeeded by the very able Jim Lowry, who 
continues to head the hospital to this day. Under Mr. Lowry's tutelage, 
Colquitt Regional Medical Center has become a force to be reckoned with 
in physician and specialist recruitment. It has also undergone four 
expansion projects and added off-campus facilities, making it a truly 
regional endeavor.
  In 1992, Colquitt Regional Medical Center was named the Georgia 
Hospital Association Rural Hospital of the Year. In 2007, it received 
the hospital association's Community Leadership Award. It has 
consistently performed at the top of Georgia's hospitals in patient 
satisfaction.
  On a personal note, my son Bo was born at Colquitt Regional. I have 
had the unfortunate situation of needing five surgeries at Colquitt 
Regional but was very fortunate to be treated by the very finest 
doctors our country has to offer and a very skilled and excellent group 
of nurses. All of the employees and operators at Cochran Regional--from 
the professionals, the administration, as well as the day-to-day 
personnel, including our pink ladies, who are our volunteers--do an 
outstanding job of making this hospital a truly fine medical facility 
serving a very broad area in the rural southwest part of my State.
  The folks at Colquitt Regional Medical Center do a tremendous job in 
serving the community. In fact, they also constitute a large part of 
our community in southwest Georgia, and we are thankful to have them in 
our midst. I congratulate Colquitt Regional Medical Center on 70 
wonderful years of service.
  With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I oppose this legislation because it 
does

[[Page S10681]]

nothing to bring our open-ended and disproportionate military 
commitment in Afghanistan to an end and/or to ensure that our troops 
are safely and expeditiously redeployed from Iraq. I am concerned that 
our current military strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan may undermine our 
ability to combat al-Qaida while imposing a tremendous burden on our 
brave servicemembers and on American taxpayers.
  This bill includes several important provisions, including provisions 
I authored that will help improve care for wounded warriors and the 
hate crimes legislation that was first introduced over 8 years ago. But 
I cannot support a bill that does not do enough to protect our country 
from our top national security threat, al-Qaida.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I rise today to address the Military 
and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act of 2009--the MOVE Act. Since its 
inception, the MOVE Act has garnered strong bipartisan support, and 
today we celebrate its passage as part of the National Defense 
Authorization Act.
  I want to recognize the importance of this Act and also to 
acknowledge my partners in this effort especially my friends and 
colleagues, Senator Saxby Chambliss, Senator Ben Nelson, Senator Bob 
Bennett, and Senator John Cornyn. I would also like to thank Senators 
Levin and McCain and their staffs, as well as the House and Senate 
conferees for their time, support, and work to ensure that the 
provisions of the MOVE Act were included in the conference report.
  Every now and then an opportunity emerges to work on an important 
issue with a team of colleagues towards a single goal. This bill 
provided one such opportunity, and I am extremely pleased to have 
worked with such a committed team. This legislation is a bipartisan 
solution to a serious, yet all too familiar problem--the problem of 
military and other overseas voters not being able to cast their vote 
and have that vote counted.
  Every couple of years there is a great push to improve the process of 
military and overseas voting. However, as soon as the election is over, 
Congress too often neglects to push for improved rights for military 
voters. That neglect is over. The needs of military and overseas voters 
have been heard, and met, with this legislation.
  While the need for Congress to act is now, this is not a new problem 
and we are not the first to identify the problem and attempt to deal 
with it. The first revolution in military voting rights occurred not 
when our soldiers were overseas. It occurred during the Civil War. At 
that time, the right to vote was provided by the Constitution, and 
soldiers from both the Union and the Confederacy depended on State law 
to determine whether they could vote ``in the field'' during wartime.
  According to historians, there were two methods of voting then. In 
the first system, a closed ballot box was taken to the field of battle, 
the ballots were cast there, and the box returned to the jurisdiction. 
States at the time questioned whether the act of voting outside their 
jurisdictions could be authorized by State law.
  Other objections to voting ``in the field'' were heard when a State 
constitution prescribed the place, time and manner of elections; and if 
military voting was conducted prior to Election Day, whether early 
voting would violate State constitutions.
  The second type of voting was known as ``proxy voting.'' A soldier's 
completed ballot was mailed to someone, such as a family member, in the 
soldier's regular place of voting. This completed proxy vote would then 
be delivered on Election Day. My home State of New York used the proxy 
vote procedure during the Civil War. While proxy voting avoided the 
constitutional problems of voting ``in the field,'' it was subject to 
other problems: the lack of a secret ballot; the transmission of the 
proxy ballot to the place of voting, and concerns about fraud.
  Given the pressure to ensure that soldiers' rights were not 
diminished by their service, States in both the North and South passed 
laws to allow for voting for Federal office. President Lincoln, in 
addition to presiding over the War Department's filing of the first 
military voting regulations on October 1, 1864, intervened with his 
generals directly to ensure that those soldiers who could vote be given 
that right.
  In an 1864 letter to GEN William Rosecrans, President Lincoln wrote 
these stern words: ``I have a report that you incline to deny the 
soldiers the right of attending the election in Missouri. . . . 
Wherever the law allows soldiers to vote their officers must also allow 
it.''
  Eighty years later, with the country locked in the crisis of the 
Second World War, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt sent a very 
pointed Message to the United States Congress on the same issue. It 
begins: ``The American people are very much concerned over the fact 
that the vast majority of the eleven million members of the armed 
forces of the United States are going to be deprived of their right to 
vote in the important national election this fall, unless the Congress 
promptly enacts adequate legislation. . . . The men and women who are 
in the armed forces are rightfully indignant about it. They have left 
their homes and jobs and schools to meet and defeat the enemies who 
would destroy all our democratic institutions, including our right to 
vote. [They] cannot understand why the fact that they are fighting 
should disqualify them from voting.''
  President Roosevelt foreshadows the issues we are still fighting to 
fix when he further advised Congress:

       By the 1944 elections, there will be than five million 
     Americans outside the limits of the United States in our 
     armed forces and merchant marine. They and the millions more 
     who will be stationed within the US waiting the day to join 
     their comrades on the battle-fronts, will all be subject to 
     frequent, rapid, and unpredictable transfer to other points 
     outside and inside the United States.

  He concluded by arguing that ``. . . What is needed is a complete 
change of machinery for absentee balloting, which will give [the armed 
forces] all over the world an opportunity to cast their ballots without 
time-consuming correspondence. . . .''
  I am subjecting us all to a bit of a history lesson here because I 
believe this is a very fundamental--and yet unresolved--issue facing 
our military and our system of elections. We meet again, 65 years after 
President Roosevelt's Message to Congress, and 145 years after 
President Lincoln's directive to let soldiers vote, to again address 
fundamental improvements to military and overseas voting.
  Building on the tools already in law, this legislation creates a 
system of improved access with multiple fail-safes built into the 
process. We use new technology to create more options for registration 
and ballot delivery, and at long last provide enough time for the 
military service men and women to vote. The lost letter, the late 
delivery, the ballot not notarized, and the last-minute troop transfer 
should no longer impede these voters from having their votes counted.
  What we did in the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act will 
have a direct and dramatic impact on the rights of military voters.
  In May 2009, I chaired a hearing in the Committee on Rules and 
Administration on the problems that military and overseas voters face. 
What we heard was nothing short of shocking.
  We learned that during the 2008 general election, our military and 
overseas voters still faced a complicated and convoluted system that 
made it impossible for many of them to have their votes counted.
  The committee convened a study of last year's election, which 
revealed that more than one in four ballots requested by military and 
other overseas voters were never received by local election officials 
and, thus, never counted. Let me repeat: one in four ballots requested 
were never counted. We owe our men and women in uniform more. Does it 
make sense that they are fighting for the very freedoms that we enjoy, 
yet are unable to choose their Commander in Chief? No, it does not.
  If we can deploy tanks, high-tech equipment, and food to the front 
lines, we can figure out a way to deliver ballots to our troops so that 
they can be returned and counted.
  The MOVE Act does precisely that, correcting many of the flaws that 
riddle the absentee balloting process for overseas voters.
  By modernizing the voting process, increasing accessibility to voter 
registration and balloting materials, and requiring election officials 
to send out

[[Page S10682]]

ballots to military and overseas voters in time for them to be returned 
and counted, this legislation--at long last--brings overseas voting 
into the 21st century.
  Consider a letter one soldier sent to the Overseas Vote Foundation 
after the 2008 election, in which that solider said: ``I hate that 
because of my military service overseas, I was precluded from voting.'' 
That solider continued, ``Of all people, deployed servicemembers should 
have a guaranteed ability to vote.''
  I say here on the floor of the Senate that I absolutely agree.
  The MOVE Act will ensure that military and other overseas voters know 
how to register to vote and how to request an absentee ballot. They 
will receive their ballot in a timely manner, and have that ballot 
counted on election day.
  How did we accomplish that goal? Through a number of simple, 
straightforward fixes to the overseas voting process:
  First, this legislation gives the right to military and overseas 
voters to request--and requires States to send--registration materials, 
absentee ballot requests, and blank absentee ballots electronically. In 
the computer age, it is long past time we used technology to speed up 
the voting process. For many troops, this quick transmission of ballots 
will give them for the first time a sufficient number of days to vote.
  Second, this legislation ensures that overseas voters have at least 
45 days to complete their absentee ballots and return them to election 
officials. For those voters who have no access to electronic delivery 
of ballots, this should provide the time for a ballot to travel to Iraq 
or Afghanistan, and back to the local election official. This need was 
exposed by a 2009 Pew Charitable Trusts study aptly named ``No Time to 
Vote.''
  This legislation also requires that military absentee ballots be sent 
through expedited mail procedures, further reducing the transmission 
time for voted ballots to make it back to local election officials.
  In the Rules Committee hearing, we listened to the concerns of Air 
Force LTC Joseph DeCaro. One major concern he described was that there 
was no way to ensure that the ballots had been properly received by the 
election office. This legislation will allow military and overseas 
voters to determine whether their ballot has been received by the local 
election official. That way, if their ballots are not received, the 
voters can take steps to ensure a replacement vote is cast.
  If a ballot is lost, or cannot be re-sent in time, we require the 
Department of Defense to create an online tool that allows military and 
overseas voters to identify all the races they are qualified to vote 
for, and submit a replacement ballot immediately. This ensures that 
troops can complete a full Federal ballot in time for the election.
  The legislation prevents election officials from rejecting overseas 
absentee ballots for reasons not related to voter eligibility, like 
paper weight or notarization requirements. I ask you, how can a marine 
in Fallujah find a notary?
  The legislation has the Department of Defense work with election 
officials to define and improve election data related to military and 
overseas voters. More accurate election data will reduce future 
problems and speed fixes to the voting process.
  Finally, this legislation expands resources for overseas voters 
through the Federal Voting Assistance Program.
  As a result of this new legislation, the Department of Defense will 
use online tools to train and inform its staff on crucial voting 
information. And all military servicemembers will receive uniform 
notices and information via e-mail prior to registration or election 
deadlines.
  Finally, this legislation directs that every military installation 
have a place where soldiers can register to vote, update their 
registration information, and request an absentee ballot. Military 
voters, as they are transferred or reassigned to different bases, will 
be provided the opportunity to change their election information.
  We also know that that there are improvements still to make. A pilot 
project included in the legislation will promote research into new 
technology to help assist future voters with absentee balloting. The 
tools and mandates set forth in this legislation are minimum 
requirements. And if technology can improve secure ballot transmission, 
we want that work done.
  Again, it is simply unacceptable that those who fight to defend our 
freedom often face the greatest obstacles in exercising their right to 
vote.
  While good work has been done in the past to improve military voting, 
I firmly believe that the MOVE Act has incorporated the best and 
strongest ideas on how to ensure a modern military receives every 
opportunity to cast their ballot. Working with States and local 
election officials, we must encourage prompt implementation of the MOVE 
Act so that the benefits of the act will impact voters in the 2010 
elections.
  In our Rules Committee hearing this May, I made the public commitment 
that we would not have another Federal election without these tools in 
place for our military voters, and I am very pleased that this act was 
agreed to by the House and Senate. I again thank our colleagues in this 
truly bipartisan effort, and I look forward to President Obama's 
signature on this important piece of legislation.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise today to speak on the 
conference report to accompany H.R. 2647, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.
  As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the chairman 
of its Subcommittee on Airland, I had the honor and pleasure again this 
year of working with Chairman Levin and Senator McCain on this bill. I 
congratulate them for working with their House counterparts, Chairman 
Skelton and Representative McKeon, to deliver a bill that will help 
keep our Nation safe and provide our troops with the support they 
deserve.
  I also wish to thank Senator Thune, who is my ranking member on the 
Airland Subcommittee, and Chairman Abercrombie and Representative 
Bartlett of the House's Air and Land Forces Subcommittee, for the close 
cooperation we achieved this year on the areas that fall under our 
shared jurisdiction.
  There are several accomplishments in this bill of which I am 
especially proud.
  This bill will increase the authorized size, known as end strength, 
of our active duty Army from 532,400 to 562,400 for fiscal year 2010, 
and further authorized the Secretary of Defense to increase the Army by 
an additional 30,000 soldiers in fiscal years 2011 and 2012. This 
growth in the Army is essential--our soldiers are under incredible 
strain from multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, oftentimes with 
little more than a year at home to rest and train for every year that 
they spend in theater.
  I applaud the President's decision this July to add 22,000 soldiers 
to the Army, and call upon him to use the authority provided in this 
bill to do more. We must ensure that our Army is large enough for all 
the missions we ask of it, and also give our soldiers the time they 
need at home to rest, train, and be with their friends and families.
  With regard to missile defense, this bill includes an amendment that 
Senator Sessions and I, along with a bipartisan group of cosponsors, 
introduced to ensure that the administration's new architecture for 
missile defenses in Europe will be as capable as the previous plan that 
was set aside. I believe that this section of the final bill, paired 
with section 8121 of the Senate version of the Defense Appropriations 
Act, which protects funding for the continued development of the two-
stage ground based interceptor, will help to keep our Nation safe 
against Iran's aggressive missile programs.
  This bill also makes critical investments in our Nation's sea power. 
It authorizes $4.2 billion for Virginia-class submarines, which will be 
procured at the rate of two per year from 2011, and $495 million for 
the research and development of a replacement to our aging Ohio-class 
strategic deterrence submarines. I am very proud of the skilled workers 
of my home State of Connecticut who build these essential submarines.
  Turning to the Army's modernization programs, the final version of 
this bill supports the decision by the Secretary of Defense and the 
Army's leadership to restructure the FCS program. This

[[Page S10683]]

bill will provide full funding for the ``Spin Out'' portions of that 
program and the continued development of the network. I look forward to 
working with Senator Thune in the coming year to evaluate the Army's 
revamped strategy for developing and procuring ground combat vehicles 
for our soldiers.
  There is one element of this bill with which I must express my deep 
disappointment--the inclusion of $560 million in funds for the 
continued development and procurement of an alternate engine for the F-
35 Joint Strike Fighter.
  When the President introduced his plans for reducing spending in the 
budget this May, he specifically pointed out the alternate engine as 
the singular example of programs that ``do nothing to keep us safe--but 
rather prevent us from spending money on what does keep us safe.'' He 
continued to say ``the pentagon does not want--and does not plan to 
use--the alternative version'' to the engine that it already has for 
the Joint Strike Fighter.
  Since the President's initial comments on this unnecessary and 
wasteful program, the Secretary of Defense and the uniformed military 
leadership have explained exactly why they do not want this 
unnecessary, alternate engine. It is because they know the danger this 
earmark poses to the Joint Strike Fighter, which is planned to be the 
cornerstone of American air power for decades to come.
  If Congress forced the Defense Department to continue paying for an 
alternate engine, it would cost an additional $4 to $6 billion over 
just the next 5 years--billions of dollars that the Department has not 
planned for, and that would either have to come from the Joint Strike 
Fighter or other critical programs to keep our country safe.
  If Congress forced the Defense Department to procure the alternate 
engine that it does not want, it would prevent the Joint Strike Fighter 
program from achieving economies of scale for years to come, as it 
split its procurement to maintain two manufacturing lines. The costs of 
the program would rise, along with the risk that it will never deliver 
the aircraft that our Nation requires.
  When he testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in June, 
Air Force LTG Mark Shackelford explained that these added costs would 
mean that the Air Force would be able to afford some 53 fewer of the 
Joint Strike Fighter aircraft that it needs to support our airmen.
  In response to the President's strong arguments and the concerns of 
our military leadership, the Senate put this question to a vote in on 
July 23, deciding by a vote of 59-38 to end the unnecessary, alternate 
engine. Although the House never took similar action on this topic, the 
Senate receded to its position in conference.
  I call upon President Obama to send a clear message to our colleagues 
on the Appropriations committee--that he will veto an appropriations 
bill that includes funds for this unnecessary program. Fifty-nine 
Members of this body stood by the President when he first called upon 
us to end this program, and I am sure that we will stand by him again.
  Despite this strong reservation, I call upon my colleagues to vote 
for the adoption this conference report and again thank my colleagues 
on the Armed Services Committee for their hard work on behalf of our 
service men and women.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I rise to speak about the fiscal year 2010 
National Defense authorization bill. Although I believe this to be a 
flawed piece of legislation, I will support it because it provides 
critical resources, training, and equipment to our troops serving 
overseas. It adds 30,000 soldiers to our Army, lightening the strain of 
rigorous deployment cycles. And it provides a 3.4-percent pay raise for 
our men and women in uniform--not enough, in my view, but welcomed 
nonetheless. It also authorizes various facility upgrades for our 
troops, including $9 million to begin construction of an Air Operations 
Command Center at Bradley International Airport in my State of 
Connecticut. I commend my colleagues from Michigan and Arizona for 
their hard work on this bill.
  I would also like to take a moment to offer my strong support to the 
hate crimes prevention amendment. I am also proud to be an original 
cosponsor of the underlying legislation, the Mathew Sheppard Local Law 
Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, and I only wish that my 
dear friend, the late Senator Kennedy, could be here with us today to 
see this topic that was so important to him, finally be considered for 
final passage. This legislation is truly historic and is long overdue. 
Hate crimes sow discord and threaten entire communities. They are a 
particularly virulent form of violence, and that is why a broad 
consensus supports reacting to crimes motivated by bias with swift 
investigations and strong penalties. However, the special nature of 
hate crimes often makes those investigations particularly difficult, 
especially for small, local police departments. Passage of the bill 
before us will bring more criminals to justice by making it easier for 
the federal government to assist the investigations of more crimes. I 
am extremely proud to support this provision.
  Despite my strong support for this important provision and many 
others in this bill, I also have to note some serious reservations I 
have with some portions of the bill. First, this bill effectively kills 
our Nation's most advanced tactical aircraft program, the F-22 Raptor, 
without any plans for replacing it. Furthermore, it fails to authorize 
funding for any additional C-17 cargo aircraft, though these planes are 
critical for transporting troops and equipment. Worse, the bill 
restricts the Air Force from retiring the aging C-5 cargo fleet, planes 
that are now some 40 years old. Over the President's objection, this 
bill forces the Pentagon to maintain aging aircraft, imposing an 
unnecessary burden on our taxpayers and an unacceptable risk on our 
troops.
  I am also disappointed by the inclusion of $560 million for the 
continued development of the F-136 Joint Strike Fighter alternate 
engine. This is wasted money, pure and simple. We are already 
developing an engine that our military supports--one build by the 
skilled workers at Pratt & Whitney. The Pratt engine has now 
accumulated more than 140 hours of flight tests without failure. 
Developing a second engine wastes billions of taxpayer dollars, money 
that could be better spent on things our troops actually need.
  So this is not a perfect bill. But there will be an opportunity to 
address these issues in the upcoming Defense appropriations bill, 
during whose consideration the critical priorities I have outlined 
attained bipartisan support. I am optimistic that we will soon be 
considering legislation that invest in strategic airlift platforms like 
the C-17, as well as other important military needs. And I remain 
optimistic that my colleagues share my commitment to our critical 
aerospace priorities. This bill includes $2.5 billion to build 125 
Blackhawk helicopters for the Army and Navy, aircraft that have proven 
invaluable in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, $92 
million is authorized for a highly advanced wide area surveillance 
radar system, which will be built in Norwalk, CT, and which will prove 
critical for our forces' future ability to have precise and up-to-date 
intelligence of the battlefield. Similarly, $250 million is authorized 
to build new Pratt & Whitney engines for the Joint STARS radar aircraft 
that are widely used in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill also authorizes 
18 F/A-18 fighter aircraft and 30 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, which 
marks the beginning of a long production run of these sophisticated 
jets.
  This is good news for our military and good news for our economy. 
According to the Department of Labor, ``The aerospace industry is a 
powerful force within the U.S. economy and one of the nation's most 
competitive industries in the global marketplace. It contributes over 
15 percent to our Gross Domestic Product and supports over 15 million 
high-quality American jobs.'' And, as I have stated before, my small 
State of Connecticut, which ranks 29th in the Nation in terms of total 
population, is 6th in aerospace employment. The workers at companies 
such as Pratt & Whitney, Hamilton Sundstrand, Sikorsky Aircraft, 
Goodrich, Norden Systems, Kaman, Aerogear, and hundreds of others work 
day in and day out to provide our troops with the highest quality 
equipment in the world. The billions of dollars of funding authorized 
in this bill is

[[Page S10684]]

proof of our military's appreciation for their hard work.
  Just as important as protecting our troops from the skies is 
protecting them when they are at sea. That is why funding authorized in 
this bill for the Virginia class submarine program is so important. The 
bill includes $4 billion to procure one submarine next year and to 
prepare to begin building two submarines per year in 2011. This boost 
in production will better equip our Navy to deliver Special Forces such 
as the SEALs without detection, launch precision missiles on a moment's 
notice, and intercept enemy signals unseen and unaffected by weather. 
This bill also authorizes $495 million to design the Ohio class 
replacement submarine, our next generation ballistic missile submarine. 
This bill confirms that submarines have and will continue to stealthily 
protect our country for decades to come.
  There is no higher priority than our national defense. And the brave 
men and women who serve us overseas must have the resources they need 
to do their jobs. I will support this legislation because it does that. 
But I look forward to working with my colleagues to strengthen our 
approach to defense policy so that we can address some of the 
shortcomings of this bill as we consider further legislation in the 
weeks ahead.
  Mr. KIRK. Madam President, Congress will pass an exceptional bill 
today. I know that Senator Kennedy would have been proud of this 
responsible legislation and the ways in which it benefits our Armed 
Forces and our country.
  The bill specifically honors the sacrifice of our men and women in 
uniform, and it includes provisions to put mechanisms in place to 
strengthen our current defense operations and our national security. I 
commend my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee for their 
leadership on these issues, and I am honored to serve on the committee 
in Senator Kennedy's place.
  I wanted to spend a moment praising our colleagues for agreeing to 
include another important provision in the bill, the Matthew Shepard 
Hate Crimes Prevention Act. I know Senator Kennedy would have been 
especially pleased by its inclusion. It is an extremely important bill 
and was especially important to Senator Kennedy.
  He worked on it for years to close the loopholes that have prevented 
effective prosecution of these flagrant crimes that terrorize entire 
groups of communities across America.
  As Senator Kennedy said so well:

       We want to be able to have a value system that is worthy 
     for our brave men and women to defend. They are fighting 
     overseas for our values. One of the values is that we should 
     not, in this country, in this democracy, permit the kind of 
     hatred and bigotry that has stained the history of this 
     nation over a considerable period of time.

  The statistics about hate crimes are shocking and shameful. For far 
too long, law enforcement has been forced to investigate these vicious 
crimes with one hand tied behind its back. The Matthew Shepard Hate 
Crimes Prevention Act gives Federal, State, and local law enforcement 
agencies the real power and authority they need to combat these brutal 
acts of domestic terrorism.
  The bill makes it clear that the time is now to stand up for all 
victims of hate crimes across America. It would not have advanced this 
far without the dedication of Senator Kennedy and other key colleagues, 
especially Senator Reid, Senator Leahy and Senator Levin. I also praise 
the incredible and tireless advocacy of Matthew Shepard's mother, Judy. 
She educated all of us about the immense impact of such crimes, and I 
know how much Senator Kennedy admired her for all she's done to make 
sure that no other families have to endure the horror she faced in the 
loss of her son.
  I know that it is unusual to include such a measure in the defense 
bill. But the rule of law will be stronger in America because of the 
inclusion of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act in this 
year's National Defense Authorization Act. I look forward to it 
becoming law as soon as possible.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I am voting no on the conference report to 
the fiscal year 2010 DOD Authorization Act.
  This was not an easy decision. This is a very important bill in view 
of the important policies it puts in place for our men and women 
uniform and I commend the leadership of the committee's chairman and 
ranking member for their commitment to the well being of our nation's 
armed forces. This conference report also contains several important 
provisions I authored or coauthored.
  However, I believe is unconscionable that this bill has been taken 
hostage by the far Left to advance its hate crimes agenda. I cannot 
provide my vote for a bill that uses our military in this way if we 
permit it this time, where will it end?
  Because of this, while this is an important conference report, and 
mostly a good one, I cannot vote in favor of it today.
  The Defense Authorization Act authorizes more than $680 billion for 
national defense programs; this figure includes authorization for 
funding for ongoing operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on 
terror. It also authorizes funding for such crucial programs as 
Department of Defense military assistance to for Afghanistan and 
Pakistan. And it includes $7.5 billion to train and equip Afghan 
security forces and $1.3 billion for the Commanders' Emergency Response 
Program, which provides funds for commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan to 
spur local security and reconstruction projects.
  The bill appropriately caps F-22 production at 187 aircraft--which 
the Pentagon requested--and it includes $6.7 billion for armored 
vehicles including the new M-ATVs, $600 million for equipment 
shortfalls in the National Guard, and more funding for defense health 
and family support programs. It also includes a 3.4 percent across-the-
board pay raise for the men and women in the military
  I am also pleased that the conference report contains several 
provisions I authored or coauthored, including an amendment requiring a 
comprehensive review by the Government Accountability Office on the 
successes, failures and unmet objectives of the Stockpile Stewardship 
Program. This is an important report for future debates on START and 
other matters, a provision I coauthored, section 1254, with Senators 
Bayh and Lieberman on imposing sanctions on Iran if it continues its 
illegal nuclear weapons program. I am disappointed that this provision 
was watered down in conference, as it passed the Senate with its 
unanimous endorsement that the Iranian Central Bank should be 
sanctioned if Iran continues to defy the world on uranium enrichment. 
However, I am pleased that it continues to state the strong support of 
the Congress for the proposition that Iran must comply with the U.N. 
Security Council Resolutions directing it to halt uranium enrichment a 
provision I authored, Section 1251, with several of my colleagues, 
including the Republican leader and the ranking member of the Armed 
Services Committee, regarding the START follow-on.
  I am pleased that the conference report enshrines in law that the 
President must deliver to the Congress a report on the plan to 
modernize the nuclear weapons stockpile and complex, as well as the 
delivery vehicles.
  The Perry-Schlesinger Commission was clear that further reductions in 
the U.S. nuclear weapons force are only prudent if the weapons that 
remain are highly reliable and credible. This is only possible with a 
robust modernization program, which has to include full and timely 
Lifetime Extension Programs for the B61 and W76 warheads consistent 
with military needs; funding for a modern warhead that includes new 
approaches to life extension involving replacement, or, possibly, 
component reuse; full funding for stockpile surveillance work through 
the nuclear weapons complex, as well as the science and engineering 
campaigns at the national laboratories; and full funding for the timely 
replacement of the Los Alamos plutonium research and development and 
analytical chemistry facility, the uranium facilities at the Oak Ridge 
Y-12 plant, and a modern pit facility.
  This provision greatly strengthens the DOD authorization bill, and, I 
think, makes it more likely the Senate will be able to ratify a follow-
on treaty to START, especially if the President heeds the Senate's 
advice, in this section, that missile defense, space systems, and 
advanced conventional modernization, which includes nonnuclear

[[Page S10685]]

global strike capability are not subjects for this follow-on agreement.
  I would have been proud to cast my vote for legislation providing 
these policies for our men and women in uniform; and I am grateful for 
the leadership of the chairman and ranking member on these issues.
  I am, however, concerned by several provisions of the bill. First, I 
opposed the inclusion of funding for an alternate engine for the F-35, 
or Joint Strike Fighter. At a time when we are fighting two wars, the 
$560 million authorized in this bill for the development and 
procurement of an alternate engine could be better spent to support our 
troops. The Secretary of Defense opposes this program, and the 
administration so strongly opposes the alternate engine that the 
President's advisers have recommended he veto the bill over this 
provision.
  Our national debt is spiraling out of control. Critical defense 
programs, like missile defense, are underfunded. The F-35 alternate 
engine is a prime example of an unnecessary program that should not be 
authorized in this bill.
  I am also greatly concerned about the manner in which missile defense 
is addressed in the conference report. I joined Senators Lieberman and 
Sessions in offering an amendment to the Senate version of the NDAA 
that would require the administration to certify that any proposed 
alternative to the planned missile defense sites in Poland and the 
Czech Republic be at least as cost effective and operationally 
effective as the original plan. In particular, I wanted to ensure that 
any alternative proposal was capable of protecting the United States as 
well as our European allies against long-range Iranian ballistic 
missiles. This amendment was adopted unanimously on the floor of the 
Senate, while a similar version was also included in the House-passed 
version of the NDAA.
  Unfortunately, the conference report only authorizes funding for the 
alternative proposal and eliminates entirely the certification 
requirement that the alternative be as least as effective as the 
planned deployments in Poland and the Czech Republic. As such, I 
believe the administration is moving forward with a plan for missile 
defenses in Europe that will leave most of Europe and the United States 
more vulnerable to the threat of long-range Iranian ballistic missiles 
than the previous plan.
  I would also note that this authorization bill endorses an approach 
to missile defense that emphasizes theater missile defense over the 
protection of the U.S. homeland. Under the previous plan, protection 
for the United States against future Iranian and North Korean 
intercontinental ballistic missiles was to be guaranteed by 54 ground-
based interceptors: 40 deployed in Alaska, 4 in California, and 10 in 
Poland. The Obama administration has curtailed this to deployment to 30 
ground-based interceptors in Alaska. Attempts by the minority to 
restore funding for the deployment of additional ground-based 
interceptors were rejected by the majority in both the House and the 
Senate. America will be less secure as a consequence.
  Finally, the so-called hate crimes bill should not have been attached 
to the defense authorization act. Adding this left-wing priority onto 
the legislation that authorizes funding for our troops in battle is not 
in our troops' best interest.
  A hate crimes bill should have been considered by this Chamber as a 
stand-alone bill that would pass or fail on its own merits. By 
attaching it to the unrelated, and must-pass, NDAA, the sponsors of 
this legislation clearly indicated that they anticipated they would 
encounter trouble in successfully getting a hate crimes bill through 
the regular legislative process on its own. And with good reason the 
hate crimes legislation is unnecessary Federal Government interference 
in an issue that is adequately handled by the States.
  Forty-five States and the District of Columbia already have hate 
crimes laws. To my knowledge, States have a track record of 
aggressively prosecuting hate crimes, making a Federal hate crimes 
prevention act an unnecessary imposition on state jurisdiction. After 
all, State, rather than Federal, courts exist to adjudicate local 
crimes. Matters that can be handled adequately by the States, like hate 
crimes prosecution, should be left to them.
  Everyone in this Chamber undoubtedly wants to ensure that all 
Americans are protected from crime. But flawed legislation that 
unnecessarily takes responsibility away from States and further taxes 
the Department of Justice's resources does not enhance the protection 
of people from these crimes.
  The chairman and ranking member worked hard to complete a conference 
report that I would have been able to support absent the so-called hate 
crimes bill. However, I cannot support using our men and women in 
uniform as pawns to satisfy the liberal base of the Democratic Party. 
For that reason, I must oppose the conference report.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, today I will cast my vote against the 
fiscal year 2010 Defense authorization bill. It is a step I take with 
some reluctance, as there are programs of merit authorized in this 
conference report.
  I take this position because the majority has seen fit to attach 
unrelated hate crimes legislation. This controversial social policy has 
nothing to do with defense policy or our global war on terror. Instead, 
the majority has chosen to evade open committee hearings and debate on 
controversial social policy by pairing it with this legislation. In my 
view, all violent crime is malicious or hateful, and all victims suffer 
regardless of the motive of the criminal. I am also mindful of the 
concerns of the many Kentuckians who contacted me with their views that 
hate-crimes laws will lead to an expansion of Federal authority that 
could chill many forms of speech, including religious expression, that 
are protected by the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
  There is much that is good in this year's Defense authorization bill, 
reflecting policies that I strongly support. For example, the bill 
authorizes a 3.4 percent pay increase for our military personnel; 
includes a number of bonuses and special pay provisions; contains 
favorable TRICARE provisions; and continues support for the alternate 
engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. It also includes a measure to make 
it easier for members of the military to vote. Further, it authorizes 
many worthwhile Kentucky appropriations projects that I have been proud 
to support.
  Were the conference report not burdened with the unnecessary and ill-
advised hate crimes legislation I would have supported it as I have 
consistently done in prior years. I am hopeful that the majority's 
effort with regard to hate crimes does not presage future legislative 
shortcuts on matters of national importance.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I rise today to state for the record 
that Congress has spoken on the major issues and concerns that have 
been raised about the Military Commissions Act of 2006. As one of the 
principal authors, I worked closely with the Chairman and Ranking 
Member to amend the language of the Military Commissions Act to address 
the concerns of the new administration, the judiciary, and other 
respected groups who have voiced concerns about military commissions. I 
would like to thank Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain and their 
respective staffs for their hard work and many hours they dedicated to 
this bill. A common understanding for all as we move forward is that 
our country is at war and we are fighting a vicious, dedicated enemy 
who preys upon civilians and has no respect for the rule of law and 
human life. There are three key areas in which Congress has clarified 
the law, and I would like to briefly address these.
  First, this legislation raises the bar to provide an even higher 
level of protection and process than enemy combatants--or enemy 
belligerents--have ever had in the history of war, much less since the 
Geneva Conventions were adopted. Common Article 3 of the Geneva 
Conventions prohibits the passing of sentences and the carrying out of 
executions without judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court 
affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as 
indispensable by civilized peoples. The detainees who are subject to 
MCA jurisdiction are not qualified for the privileged status of 
Prisoner of War. However, because we have such deep respect for due 
process in this country, Congress constituted a court under the MCA of 
2006, in accordance with our Constitution, to

[[Page S10686]]

provide appropriate due process to those who conducted themselves 
outside the law of armed conflict. In the current legislation, we now 
add additional due process within this court.
  Second, in the legal history of these commissions there has always 
been robust debate about how to handle sensitive classified 
information. The commissions by definition discuss the most sensitive 
elements of our national security and process cases against the most 
dangerous and committed enemies of our country. In the current 
legislation we have carefully drafted new protections to ensure our 
Nation's intelligence is protected, while also allowing the defendants 
to see the information presented against them. These procedures were 
modeled on the Classified Information Procedures Act and will therefore 
allow the judiciary to look to the developed case law of our Federal 
courts when issues arise that may not be entirely answered by the plain 
text of the statute. We intend that this case law be instructive but 
not necessarily binding on the military commissions. We have also 
included language to clarify that the national security privilege may 
be invoked by the government at any time in order to protect our 
national security.
  Thirdly, the MCA of 2009 offers even more protections for the 
defendants. The new administration came to office voicing a number of 
concerns about the MCA of 2006. With their party also in control of 
both houses of Congress, there has been ample discussion and 
opportunity to draft new text addressing those concerns. During 
hearings before our committees, administration officials expressed both 
their official and personal concerns with respect to various aspects of 
the commissions. As an equal branch of government, Congress considered 
all those issues and addressed them in this new legislation. Among 
those concerns was the question of whether Congress had created an ex 
post facto issue in the MCA of 2006. Congress has modified the language 
on this issue in the current legislation, but has not changed its 
position. As the branch of government empowered to write the laws under 
our Constitution, Congress has codified offenses which have 
traditionally been tried by military commissions under customary 
international law. There is no need to go into a detailed history of 
military commissions and war crimes trials here, but it should be noted 
that Congress clearly states in this act that those who aid unlawful 
combatants are subject to the Commission's jurisdiction to the same 
extent as those who directly commit the crimes. Further, we understand 
that there will always be a debate about when the war with al-Qaida and 
violent extremists first began. Osama bin Laden formally declared war 
against the United States in a fatwa in 1996, but, of course, the first 
World Trade Center bombing was in February of 1993. Understanding the 
ambiguity of this issue, Congress has deliberately stated that the 
military commissions may exercise jurisdiction over offenses that 
occurred before the date of enactment.
  In closing, I would like to note that in passing these reforms to the 
MCA of 2006, Congress has once again affirmed the legitimacy of the 
commissions, their sufficiency of due process, and their rightful place 
in our juris prudence. Our country is at war with an enemy that has 
clearly stated they will continue to disregard the law of war and 
commit war crimes. The military commissions are the most appropriate 
judicial forum in which to try those individuals.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I rise today in support of the Matthew 
Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Matthew Shepard was brutally 
murdered more than 11 years ago, and yet the bill that bears his name 
it still not law. Today, we will finally send this historic bill to 
President Obama for his signature.
  Many of us here in Congress have fought for this day for years--my 
dear friend, the late Ted Kennedy, fought for this day for decades. It 
is a bittersweet day. For as much as this is a victory for all who 
stand for civil rights, it brings to mind those horrible crimes 
committed simply because an individual is gay, or black, or Latino, or 
Muslim, or because of any other aspect of their being.
  These crimes must not be met with silence, but rather, with our 
loudest voices.
  In an era in which we elected our first African-American president, 
we must condemn crimes based on racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, or 
any other small-minded and intolerant angst. We must act, as these are 
crimes inflicted not merely on individuals, but on entire communities. 
They are attacks meant to not only break bones, but to break spirits. 
These crimes know no state boundaries--they are a national problem.
  And today we will present the President with a national response. But 
let me be clear: this legislation does not criminalize speech or 
hateful thoughts. It seeks only to punish action--violent action that 
undermines the core values of our Nation.
  One particularly chilling hate crime occurred in my home state of New 
York less than two weeks ago. The victim, Jack Prince, was leaving a 
deli in College Point, Queens late at night when two men started 
yelling anti-gay slurs at him. Suddenly, the perpetrators began beating 
him, savagely breaking Jack's jaw, his ribs, and causing both of his 
lungs to collapse. This crime, which was caught on video, shook the 
entire gay community.
  This legislation sends a clear message to Jack's perpetrators and to 
all others: In America, we do not tolerate acts of violence motivated 
by hatred. In America, you are free to be yourself, and you should 
never be attacked for being so.
  The time for waiting is over. The time for silence is over.
  With the Matthew Shepard Act, we are helping local law enforcement 
stamp out crimes like the one committed earlier this month and punish 
its perpetrators. With the Matthew Shepard Act, we are saying, 
``Enough!''
  And, with the Matthew Shepard Act, we are honoring a brave soul. I 
personally want to thank Judy Shepard and all who continue to fight 
alongside her to make sure that we not only remember her son's life, 
but that we continue to strive for a better America.
  For one last time, let me say: I urge my colleagues to support the 
Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 4:40 
p.m. today, all postcloture time be yielded back and the Senate then 
proceed to vote on the adoption of the conference report to accompany 
H.R. 2647, the Department of Defense Authorization Act; that no points 
of order be in order to the conference report; further that the vote on 
the motion to proceed to H.R. 3548 occur at 2:30 p.m., Tuesday, October 
27.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I ask the 
distinguished assistant leader if he would agree to allow the vote to 
start immediately and that we make sure that 5 minutes is counted 
toward the end.
  Mr. DURBIN. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  All time having been yielded back, the question is on agreeing to the 
conference report.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Utah (Mr. Hatch) and the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) 
would have voted ``no.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 68, nays 29, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 327 Leg.]

                                YEAS--68

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Kirk

[[Page S10687]]


     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--29

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     McConnell
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Byrd
     Hatch
     Murkowski
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have just adopted a landmark Defense 
authorization bill. We are sending to the President the 48th 
consecutive Defense authorization bill--I move to reconsider the vote 
on that bill and lay that motion upon the table.
  The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have an unbroken tradition on our 
committee, 48 consecutive national Defense authorization bills. It is 
never easy to get this bill through the legislative process. But with 
perseverance, a lot of good-faith work has never let us down.
  We maintain our focus because we are acting on behalf of our true 
heroes, the men and women of our Armed Forces and their families. The 
enactment of this conference report is going to provide the men and 
women of our Armed Forces, both Active and Reserve, and their families 
with the pay and benefits they deserve, the equipment and training they 
need.
  The conference report includes $164 billion for military personnel, 
including costs of pay, allowances, bonuses, survivor benefits, and 
military health care. It would authorize a 3.4 percent across-the-board 
pay raise for our troops, a half a percent above the budget request and 
the annual increase in the employment cost Index.
  The conference report would authorize $130 billion in funding for our 
ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would provide 
more than $2.0 billion for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat 
Fund, to help take on the threat that has claimed so many American 
lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would fully fund the President's 
request for $7.5 billion to train and equip the Afghan National Army 
and the Afghan National Police.
  This legislation sends a vital message to our men and women in 
uniform that we, as a nation, stand behind them and appreciate their 
service.
  We are at this point because all our dedicated Members and all our 
dedicated staff members--on both sides of the Capitol--were all willing 
to hit on all cylinders and keep this bill rolling along.
  Of course, I want to start by thanking my partner and my friend, 
Senator McCain, as well as all committee members, for their active 
roles in getting us to this point. Our counterparts on the House side, 
Congressmen Ike Skelton and Buck McKeon and the House Armed Services 
Committee staff lead by Erin Conaton and Bob Simmons, also have our 
gratitude. Senator McCain and I are extremely grateful to our own 
committee staff members who so willingly put all their legislative 
expertise into this bill. Not only is there a tremendous amount of 
legislative craftsmanship involved, but there is a mind-boggling number 
of administrative details that have to be meticulously tracked in this 
massive bill.
  I again thank my partner and my friend, Senator McCain, as well as 
all committee members for their active roles in getting us to this very 
historic moment when there is much in this bill that is so important to 
our troops, as well as a number of other provisions which are 
critically important to success in Afghanistan and Iraq.
  Our dedicated, hard-working staff assistants in particular deserve a 
special mention for their extraordinary efforts in this regard. As a 
visible sign of the high regard in which we hold our staff, I ask 
unanimous consent to have all staff members' names printed in the 
Record. I offer here a list of the staff of the Armed Services 
Committee for that purpose.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                Staff of the Committee on Armed Services

       Adam J. Barker, June M. Borawski, Joseph W. Bowab, Leah C. 
     Brewer, Christian D. Brose, Joseph M. Bryan, Pablo E. 
     Carrillo, Jonathan D. Clark, Ilona R. Cohen, Christine E. 
     Cowart, Madelyn R. Creedon, Kevin A. Cronin, Richard D. 
     DeBobes, Gabriella Eisen, Richard W. Fieldhouse, Creighton 
     Greene, Howard H. Hoege III, Gary J. Howard, Paul J. Hubbard, 
     Paul C. Hutton IV, Jessica L. Kingston, Jennifer R. Knowles, 
     Michael V. Kostiw, Michael J. Kuiken, Mary J. Kyle, Christine 
     G. Lang, and Terence K. Laughlin.
       Gerald J. Leeling, Daniel A. Lerner, Peter K. Levine, 
     Gregory R. Lilly, Hannah I. Lloyd, Jason W. Maroney, Thomas 
     K. McConnell, William G. P. Monahan, David M. Morriss, Lucian 
     L. Niemeyer, Michael J. Noblet, Christopher J. Paul, Cindy 
     Pearson, Roy F. Phillips, John H. Quirk V, Brian F. Sebold, 
     Arun A. Seraphin, Russell L. Shaffer, Travis E. Smith, 
     Jennifer L. Stoker, William K. Sutey, Diana G. Tabler, Mary 
     Louise Wagner, Richard F. Walsh, Breon N. Wells, and Dana W. 
     White.
  Mr. LEVIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________