[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 170 (Tuesday, November 17, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11407-S11411]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                  APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010--Continued


                           Amendment No. 2774

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 5 
minutes of debate, equally divided, on amendment No. 2774, offered by 
the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe.
  Who seeks recognition? The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute.
  The Inhofe amendment would actually make us less secure by 
restricting our ability to improve security at facilities that house 
detainees who have been transferred from Guantanamo to the United 
States for their trials. Our communities will be less safe because 
money cannot be spent to make more secure the places where these 
detainees are being kept. It seems to me this is kind of a ``cutting 
off your nose to spite your face'' approach. Regardless of how people 
voted on whether we should have trials in the United States, the 
decision has been made that there are going to be trials in the United 
States. There already have been trials in the United States. There are 
detainees who are awaiting trial in the United States. It would seem to 
me it is in everybody's interest that the places where these detainees 
are being kept should be as secure as possible. It makes no sense, 
regardless of what one's position is on the question of where the trial 
should be held, not to have them kept in the most secure possible 
facilities.
  I hope the Inhofe amendment is defeated. It is counterproductive, no 
matter what position one takes on the location of trials.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the amendment sponsored by Senator Inhofe 
is one of a series of amendments that have recently been offered in the 
Senate that would put political interests ahead of our national 
interests. This amendment would prohibit any funds from being used to 
construct or modify any facility in the United States to hold any 
individual who is currently being held at the Guantanamo Bay detention 
facility.
  This goal of this amendment is to ensure that the detainees being 
held at Guantanamo Bay, some for years without charge, cannot be tried 
in our Federal courts and that the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay 
cannot close. This is harmful to our national security and devastating 
to our reputation as a model justice system throughout the world. As a 
former prosecutor, I find it deeply troubling that the Senate would be 
asked to prohibit the administration from trying even dangerous 
terrorists in our Federal courts. As a Senator, I find it shameful that 
Congress is being asked to help keep open a facility that has been a 
stain on our reputation throughout the world and has given ammunition 
to our enemies. GEN Colin Powell was correct when he said, ``Guantanamo 
has become a major problem for America's perception as it's seen; the 
way the world perceives America.''
  President Obama addressed that problem in the first days of his 
Presidency by announcing that he would close Guantanamo Bay, and he has 
affirmed that commitment by announcing that the administration will 
have a preference for trying detainees in our proven Federal courts. 
Just last week, the Attorney General announced that, in consultation 
with the Secretary of Defense, the U.S. Government will begin to move 
toward federal criminal trials against five of these detainees, 
including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. I have supported President Obama and 
the Attorney General in these steps, and I will continue to do so. That 
is why I have voted against amendments that would withhold funding to 
close the Guantanamo detention facility and prohibit any Guantanamo 
detainees from being brought to the United States. These amendments 
undermine the good work the President is doing, and they make us less 
safe, not safer.
  Two weeks ago, the Senate defeated another amendment that would have 
restricted the authority and the options of our military and law 
enforcement. Secretary Gates and Attorney General Holder sent us a 
joint letter opposing that amendment. They reminded us that we should 
not prohibit the Government from being able to ``use every lawful 
instrument of national power . . . to ensure that terrorists are 
brought to justice and can no longer threaten American lives.'' That is 
exactly what this amendment would do by tying the administration's 
hands in the event that they need to upgrade any facility in order to 
securely house these detainees. I will ask that a copy of the 
administration's letter be printed in the Record.
  Again, this week, joined by Secretary Napolitano, Attorney General 
Holder and Secretary Gates wrote to the Senate in opposition, this time 
to the Inhofe amendment we consider today. I will ask that the 
administration's letter be printed in the Record.
  Instead of closing Guantanamo and moving toward a lawful and 
effective national security policy, this amendment would say to the 
world that we refuse to face what we did at Guantanamo and instead 
would continue the legacy of a place that was created in an effort to 
lock people up for years without charge and not face the consequences. 
This amendment would say to the world that we are not strong enough, 
that our over 200-year-old superior legal tradition is not flexible 
enough, to allow us to deal with those who attack us. Refusing to close 
Guantanamo also means we lose our ability to respond with moral 
authority if other countries should mistreat American soldiers or 
civilians.
  Much debate has focused on keeping Guantanamo detainees out of the 
United States. In this debate, political rhetoric has entirely drowned 
out reason and reality. Our criminal justice system handles extremely 
dangerous criminals, and more than a few terrorists, and it does so 
safely and effectively. We try very dangerous people in our courts and 
hold very dangerous people in our jails throughout the country. I know; 
I put some of them there. We do it every day in ways that keep the 
American people safe and secure, and I have absolute confidence that we 
can do it for even the most dangerous terrorism suspects.
  The facts speak for themselves. The Judiciary Committee has held 
several hearings on the issue of how to best handle detainees, and 
experts and judges from across the political spectrum have agreed that 
our courts and our criminal justice system can handle this challenge 
and indeed has handled it many times already. Since January of this 
year alone over 30 terrorism cases have been either successfully tried 
or sentenced using our Federal courts. No one has ever escaped from a 
Supermax facility. In fact terrorists are routinely and securely held 
at our prisons, including Zacharias Moussaoi, one of the plotters 
behind the September 11 attacks and Ramzi Yousef, the World Trade 
Center bomber.
  Why would the Senate pass an amendment that suggests that our country 
and the brave men and women who staff these prisons cannot handle these 
prisoners, or that they are not up to the task? And why would we pass 
an amendment that simultaneously makes it harder for the government to 
securely detain terrorism suspects in our prisons by making any 
necessary adjustments to hold them? This amendment would ironically

[[Page S11408]]

make us less safe by making our prisons less secure. This is playing 
games with national security.
  It is not only President Obama who believes that closing Guantanamo 
will make us a more secure and honorable nation. I agree with the 
conviction expressed by Senator Graham and Senator McCain who said, 
``[w]e support President Obama's decision to close the prison at 
Guantanamo, reaffirm America's adherence to the Geneva Conventions, and 
begin a process that will, we hope, lead to the resolution of all cases 
of Guantanamo detainees.''
  It is time to act on our principles and our constitutional system. It 
is time to close Guantanamo and try and convict those who seek to do us 
harm. Where the administration decides to try them in Federal courts, 
our courts and our prisons are more than up to the task.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a copy of the administration's letter to which I referred.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 October 30, 2009.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Reid and McConnell: We write to oppose the 
     amendment proposed by Senator Graham (on behalf of himself 
     and Senators McCain and Lieberman) to H.R. 2847, the 
     Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act of 2010. This amendment would prohibit the 
     use of Department of Justice funds ``to commence or continue 
     the prosecution in an Article III court of the United States 
     of an individual suspected of planning, authorizing, 
     organizing, committing, or aiding the attacks on the United 
     States and its citizens that occurred on September 11, 
     2001.''
       As you know, both the Department of Justice (in Article III 
     courts) and the Department of Defense (in military 
     commissions, reformed under the 2010 National Defense 
     Authorization Act) have responsibility for prosecuting 
     alleged terrorists. Pursuant to a joint prosecution protocol, 
     our departments are currently engaged in a careful case-by-
     case evaluation of the cases of Guantanamo detainees who have 
     been referred for possible prosecution, to determine whether 
     they should be prosecuted in an Article III court or by 
     military commission. We are confident that the forum 
     selection decisions that are made pursuant to this process 
     will best serve our national security interests.
       We believe that it would be unwise, and would set a 
     dangerous precedent, for Congress to restrict the discretion 
     of either department to fund particular prosecutions. The 
     exercise of prosecutorial discretion has always been and 
     should remain an Executive Branch function. We must be in a 
     position to use every lawful instrument of national power--
     including both courts and military commissions--to ensure 
     that terrorists are brought to justice and can no longer 
     threaten American lives.
       For these reasons, we respectfully request that you oppose 
     this amendment.
     Robert M. Gates,
       Secretary of Defense.
     Eric H. Holder, Jr.,
       Attorney General.
                                  ____

                                                November 17, 2009.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Reid and McConnell: We write to oppose 
     Senator Inhofe's amendment (No. 2774) to H.R. 3082, the 
     Military Construction, Department of Veterans Affairs, and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010. 
     This amendment would prohibit the use of funds appropriated 
     or otherwise made available in H.R. 3082 to ``construct or 
     modify a facility or facilities in the United States or its 
     territories to permanently or temporarily hold any individual 
     who was detained as of October 1, 2009, at Naval Station, 
     Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.''
       Like the President and numerous others, both Republicans 
     and Democrats, we are convinced that closing the Guantanamo 
     Bay detention center is in the national security interests of 
     the United States. Al Qaeda has repeatedly used the existence 
     of the facility as a recruitment tool. We are convinced that 
     as long as the Guantanamo Bay detention center remains open, 
     our enemies will continue to exploit its existence for this 
     purpose.
       We acknowledge that closing Guantanamo has proven 
     difficult, but that is not a reason for the Congress to 
     preclude this important national security objective. At 
     present, we are making progress toward this goal. An 
     interagency team is assessing the suitability of a maximum 
     security prison in Thomson, Illinois, to serve as a detention 
     center for certain Guantanamo Bay detainees who may be 
     transferred to the United States. On Friday, the Department 
     of Justice announced that it will prosecute the alleged 9/11 
     conspirators in federal court, while the Department of 
     Defense will resume other cases against those allegedly 
     responsible for the USS Cole bombing and other acts of 
     terrorism in military commissions, which have been reformed 
     as a result of the bipartisan passage of the Military 
     Commissions Act of 2009.
       We need to get on with the work of enhancing our national 
     security by finally closing the Guantanamo Bay detention 
     center. The Inhofe amendment would have the opposite effect 
     and would likely prevent further progress on this important 
     issue. We ask that you join us in opposing the Inhofe 
     amendment.
     Eric H. Holder, Jr.
     Robert M. Gates.
     Janet Napolitano.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? The Senator from 
Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, inquiry. Is this the final argument before 
the vote on the Inhofe amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes; the Senator has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this amendment has been here three times 
before. In fact, this amendment has been supported with over 90 votes 
each time it came through. Unfortunately, once one of the bills went 
into conference, it was taken out. They replaced it with a 45-day 
provision.
  What this does--it is a one-sentence amendment, very easy to 
understand. It says:

       None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     by this Act may be used to construct or modify a facility or 
     facilities in the United States [to house terrorists].

  If you want terrorists here, then vote against this amendment. This 
may be the last shot you have at it. We have the Inouye-Inhofe 
amendment already passed in the Defense authorization bill, but it is 
in conference. We do not know whether it will come out. This is the 
second shot we have to try to keep terrorists from coming into the 
United States.
  I retain the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? The Senator from 
Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I would like to speak quickly in opposition 
to this amendment.
  It has been my strong belief--
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Is the Senator from Virginia speaking on the 2\1/2\ 
minutes of the majority?
  Mr. WEBB. That is correct. It has been my strong belief that 
individuals who were charged with international terrorism should be 
classified as enemy combatants, and I stated many times I do not 
believe they belong in our country. They don't belong in our courts. 
They don't belong in our prisons. At the same time, I recognize that 
the President retains the constitutional authority to bring charges 
against these individuals in article III courts. The Graham amendment 
did resolve that issue in terms of their transfer to U.S. soil.
  This amendment, unfortunately, would not address that issue. It 
prohibits appropriation of funds to modify facilities in the United 
States in order to hold such individuals. I believe that would prevent 
law enforcement officials from taking the steps that are necessary to 
improve security in our local communities and that it would put our 
security at risk. It is for this reason I oppose the amendment and I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority has 9 minutes 30 seconds 
remaining, the majority has about 25 seconds remaining.
  Mr. INHOFE. Let me repeat. We have voted on this amendment before. We 
voted three different times. This was actually structured as the 
Inouye-Inhofe amendment once and the Inhofe-Inouye amendment once. It 
has passed overwhelmingly. This is the only way we can see that we can 
assure we are not going to have those individuals who are now at Gitmo 
in the United States. I think we have discussed this several times. I 
strongly support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remains 56 seconds.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to speak in favor of the 
amendment. I do not think these prisoners from Guantanamo Bay should be 
in our country. I think we should stand firm, we should stand clear 
that this Senate, as we have voted before, does not want prisoners from 
Guantanamo Bay transferred to American soil. It will be a security risk 
to America. We do not need

[[Page S11409]]

to do it. This would be a way to stop this and do what is right for our 
country; that is, keep these prisoners where they are secure, away from 
any ability to harm America. I urge a vote for the Inhofe amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 23 seconds.
  Mr. DURBIN. Neither the Senator from Oklahoma nor the Senator from 
Texas has addressed the amendment before us. This is not an amendment 
about transferring from Guantanamo to the United States. It is about 
whether we will spend the money to make sure, when these detainees are 
under trial in the United States, which they can be legally, they will 
be held safely. The Inhofe amendment precludes the expenditure of funds 
to improve the security of law enforcement facilities to contain these 
Guantanamo detainees.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, if we don't want to house those 
prisoners here, we should not try them here. That is the answer for 
this. Vote for the Inhofe amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. JOHNSON. I move to table the amendment. I ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 347 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

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

                                NAYS--43

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Pryor
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay 
that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I voted against the amendment offered by 
Senator Inhofe, No. 2774. It is time for Congress to allow the 
administration to work toward the goal that so many of us support: 
closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay once and for all. The 
administration has provided its plan to Congress, and has provided 
individualized reports on each detainee before any transfer occurs. 
While closing Guantanamo may not be easy, it is vital to our national 
security that we close this prison, which is a recruiting tool for our 
enemies. In particular, I oppose this amendment because it would 
prohibit the executive branch from spending money to upgrade security 
at U.S. detention facilities where Guantanamo detainees might be held, 
thereby making the American people less safe.


                           Amendment No. 2743

  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I wish to speak to amendment No. 2743 which 
would reallocate $750,000 from the general operating expense account to 
fund programs to end veterans' homelessness, including the Department 
of Veterans Affairs' Homeless Provider Grant and Per Diem Program, and 
VA's Supportive Services Grants Program.
  This money will help more than 131,000 veterans who are homeless on 
any given night including the estimated 1,659 homeless veterans in my 
home state. Many veterans are considered homeless or at risk due to 
their poverty, lack of support systems, and poor living conditions.
  Homeless veterans are comprised of middle-age and elderly veterans, 
as well as younger veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. The VA 
has identified 1,500 homeless veterans who fought during the current 
wars and of those, only 400 have participated in programs specifically 
targeting homelessness.
  Sadly, homelessness among the ranks of recently separated combat 
veterans is not a new phenomenon, and their plight for the Nation's 
compassionate assistance is just as strong today as it was centuries 
ago. According to Todd DePastino, a historian at Penn State, homeless 
veterans of the post-Civil War era sang old Army songs to dramatize 
their need for work.
  After World War I, thousands of veterans marched and camped in the 
Nation's Capital to express their frustration over bonus money. Many of 
these veterans were either homeless or at risk of becoming homeless.
  After the Vietnam war, returning veterans were faced with serious 
physical, mental, and socio-economic problems that put them at serious 
risk of becoming homeless. According to VA the number of homeless male 
and female Vietnam era veterans is greater than the number of 
servicemembers who died during the Vietnam war.
  It is important that Congress and VA remember the lessons learned 
from previous wars. We must work together to prevent homelessness 
before it begins with the goal of eliminating homelessness. Much 
progress has been made, but we can do better.
  My amendment targets two specific areas within VA's medical care 
budget for more funding. The Homeless Provider Grant and Per Diem 
Program offers funding to community agencies that provide services to 
homeless veterans. The purpose of the program is to promote the 
development and provision of supportive housing and/or supportive 
services with the goal of helping veterans achieve and maintain 
residential stability.
  The supportive services programs allow veterans who are at risk or 
who are reentering the workforce to receive services that will reduce 
their likelihood of becoming homeless. Supportive services include 
health care services; daily living services, personal financial 
planning; transportation services; income support services; fiduciary 
and representative payee services; legal services; child care; housing 
counseling; and other services necessary for maintaining independent 
living.
  In short, these programs are comprehensive and they work.
  My original intention was to offer an amendment that would reallocate 
$43,387,240, on top of the money in this amendment, for homeless 
programs. Ten years ago that money was originally appropriated for the 
Multifamily Transitional Housing Loan Guarantee Program. Since that 
program has been suspended, I believe this money could be put to a 
better use. However, the Congressional Budget Office tells me that 
rescinding the $43 million and spending it on this bill would run afoul 
of our budget rules. I will therefore look for another opportunity to 
put this unused money to a better use in the near future. In the 
meantime, CBO has informed me that the amendment is compliant. I thank 
my colleagues for their support of my amendment.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am so pleased that today the Senate will 
pass the fiscal year 2010 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. This legislation provides 
$133.9 billion in critical funding to ensure that our Nation's veterans 
have the care and services that they have earned and deserve. 
Specifically, it includes for the first time advance appropriations for 
veterans medical services--ensuring that the Department of Veterans 
Affairs receives funds in a timely and predictable manner. It also 
provides $45 billion for veterans' health care, including $4.6 billion 
for mental health treatment and programs.
  In addition, the bill includes $23.2 billion for military 
construction and family housing, including $9.9 million to replace the 
144th Squadron's current operations facilities at Fresno-Yosemite 
International Air National Guard Base. The squadron currently operates 
across several outdated facilities that are not sufficient for modern 
day operations. The facility will ultimately be

[[Page S11410]]

used to house F-15C Eagle aircraft squadron operations. F-15Cs are 
expected to arrive at the base in 2012 to replace the aging F-16C 
fleet. The 144th Fighter Wing provides air defense for California from 
Oregon to the Mexican border and is vital to the Nation's security.
  The Senate voted on a number of amendments to this bill that have 
important consequences and I want to provide some additional 
information on two of my votes.
  Last night, the Senate rejected a motion to send this bill back to 
the Appropriations Committee. I joined 68 of my colleagues in voting 
against this motion because I believe that this is a strong, bipartisan 
bill. By sending this bill back to committee, we would be unfairly 
asking our Nation's veterans to wait even longer for care. The men and 
women who have served our country so honorably should not be forced to 
wait for critical services.
  And today, the Senate voted to reject an amendment that would 
prohibit the use of funds in this bill to build or make security 
improvements to a facility in the United States to hold a detainee who 
is transferred here from Guantanamo Bay. What it would have done is 
prevent the administration from making vital security improvements to 
our detention facilities. Ensuring that detention facilities have the 
highest possible security is critical to our national security and this 
amendment would have restricted that ability unnecessarily.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, this Military Construction and Veterans 
Affairs Appropriations Act for 2010 rightfully prioritizes the health 
care of the Nation's wounded warriors by substantially increasing 
discretionary health care spending for fiscal year 2010. This bill 
includes a $45.1 billion appropriation for the Veterans Health 
Administration that will enable VA to treat an estimated 6.1 million 
patients in 2010, including $533 million to support the enrollment of 
266,000 nondisabled, modest-income veterans. This funding furthers the 
Administration's goal of enrolling more than 500,000 of these 
previously ineligible veterans by 2013. In addition to enrolling more 
veterans of modest means, this bill provides for $440 million to 
improve the health of rural veterans.
  The 2010 Milcon-VA Appropriations Act includes a total of $34.7 
billion for medical services, $4.8 billion for construction, and $580 
million for medical and prosthetic research. Total discretionary 
spending will be increased over $3.9 billion above the fiscal year 2009 
enacted level.
  I am delighted that for the first time VA will receive advance 
appropriations--an additional $48.2 billion in for fiscal year 2011--
for three VA medical care accounts. This coincides with the landmark 
legislation, Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act of 
2009, which was signed into law as Public Law 111-81 by the President 
on October 22, 2009. Funding VA health care in advance will go a long 
way toward rectifying the chronic underfunding of VA health care, which 
has left so many of the Nation's veterans with unmet health care needs.
  This bill fully funds VA's research programs. The $580 million 
appropriation for VHA research represents a $70 million increase from 
the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and an amount equal to the budget 
request. Through these funds, VA will be able to pursue targeted 
research goals like developing better prosthetic devices for the 
younger veterans returning from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. VA can 
continue research into conditions like post-traumatic stress disorder, 
traumatic brain injury, and gulf war Illness. In addition, VA can 
continue to recruit and retain quality health care providers, as over 
three-quarters of VA's researchers also provide direct patient care.
  I am pleased that this bill contains an amendment I offered that will 
extend VA's authority to operate the Manila VA Regional Office.
  Earlier this year, over 60 years after the end of the World War II, 
surviving Filipino World War II veterans finally received a measure of 
compensation for their service in the form of a one-time lump sum 
payment. These past months have demonstrated that dispersing these 
payments has been an enormous challenge, with multiple steps to 
authenticate the service of these World War II veterans.
  Unfortunately, VA's authority to operate the Manila VA Regional 
Office will expire on December 31, 2009. There remains much work to be 
done in order to continue processing claims and ensuring these veterans 
are awarded benefits they have waited six long decades to receive. For 
this and other purposes, the operational authority of the Manila 
Regional Office must be extended.
  The Manila Regional Office currently administers compensation, 
pension, vocational rehabilitation and employment, and education 
benefits to over 18,000 beneficiaries. In addition, VA also administers 
Social Security in the Philippines. Keeping this facility fully 
functioning is necessary for these deserving individuals to receive 
critical veterans' benefits as well to carry out an integral part of 
the U.S. mission to the Republic of the Philippines.
  I extend my deepest thanks to the staff of the Manila Regional Office 
who have continued to demonstrate unwavering dedication to their duty 
to assist Filipino World War II veterans and indeed all veterans who 
apply for benefits from VA.
  Finally, I mention Senator Burr's amendment, included in the 
underlying bill, that would directly support efforts to address 
homelessness among our Nation's veterans. His provisions, of which I am 
a cosponsor, are offset by funds currently allocated for administrative 
costs for an existing homeless program that is essentially defunct--the 
Multifamily Transitional Housing Loan Guarantee Program.
  I will be working with Senator Burr in the future to ensure that the 
unspent money for this program--$43 million--can be used for more 
active homeless programs, such as the Grant and Per Diem Program.
  In closing, I thank Senators Johnson and Hutchison, the chair and 
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Military Construction and 
Veterans Affairs; Senators Inouye and Cochran, the chair and ranking 
member of the Appropriations Committee; and their staffs for their hard 
work in putting this bill together and for working to incorporate 
important veterans-related provisions in the package. Additionally, I 
thank the Members who filed VA-related amendments who worked with the 
Veterans' Affairs Committee to come to agreement on issues that could 
be addressed in this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado). The substitute, as 
amended, is agreed to.
  The question is on the engrossment of the amendments and third 
reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 348 Leg.]

                               YEAS--100

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     LeMieux
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
  The bill (H.R. 3082), as amended, was passed, as follows:
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)

[[Page S11411]]

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate insists 
on its amendment, requests a conference with the House, and the Chair 
appoints the following conferees.
  The Presiding Officer appointed Mr. Johnson, Mr. Inouye, Ms. 
Landrieu, Mr. Byrd, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reed, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. 
Pryor, Mr. Leahy, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Brownback, Mr. McConnell, Ms. 
Collins, Ms. Murkowski, and Mr. Cochran.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. JOHNSON. 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. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleagues for their 
help in getting this bill completed. It was a long and slow process, 
but I am thankful we were able to dispose of a majority of the 
amendments that were offered.
  This is a good bill. It is truly a bipartisan bill and contains some 
good programs that will help out military men and women and our 
Nation's vets. The bill provides investments in infrastructure for our 
military, including barracks and family housing, training and 
operational facilities, and childcare and family support centers. In 
addition, it fulfills the Nation's promise to our vets by providing the 
resources needed for the medical care and benefits that our vets have 
earned through their service.
  As I have mentioned, for the first time the bill contains advance 
funding for vets' medical care for fiscal year 2011. This funding will 
ensure that the VA has a predictable stream of funding and that medical 
services will not be adversely affected should another stopgap funding 
measure be needed in the future.
  I wish to thank my ranking member, Senator Hutchison, for her work on 
this bill. She was critical in getting the amendments cleared on her 
side of the aisle. I wish to thank her staff, Dennis Balkham and Ben 
Hammond, for their hard work. I also wish to thank the majority staff, 
Chad Schulken and Andy Vanlandingham, for their hard work on this 
important bill. I would especially like to thank the subcommittee 
clerk, Christina Evans, for her hard work and leadership on this 
subcommittee.
  I also wish to acknowledge the hard work of the floor staff and the 
cloakroom staffs. Thank you, Dave and Lula, for helping us get to this 
point.
  Mr. President, let me again thank my colleagues. Thank you.
  I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized.
  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________