[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 126 (Monday, September 20, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7193-S7197]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011--MOTION TO
PROCEED
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 3454,
which the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to the bill (S. 3454) to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2011 for military activities
of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and
for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to
prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year,
and for other purposes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have enacted a National Defense
Authorization Act every year for the last 48 years, and we need to do
the same this year. I hope we can at least make some progress during
the next few days and weeks on this bill.
This year's bill would continue 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 would extend over 30 types of bonuses and
special pays aimed at encouraging enlistment, reenlistment, and
continued service by Active-Duty and Reserve military personnel.
The bill would authorize continued TRICARE coverage for eligible
dependents of servicemembers up to age 26.
The bill would improve care for our wounded warriors by addressing
inequities in rules for involuntary administrative separations based on
medical conditions and requiring new education and training programs on
the use of pharmaceuticals for patients in wounded warrior units.
The bill would authorize and allow the waiver of maximum age
limitations to enable certain highly qualified enlisted members who
served in Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom to
enter the military service academies.
The bill also includes important funding and authorities needed to
provide our troops the equipment and support they will continue to need
as long as they remain on the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan.
For example, the bill would enhance the military's ability to rapidly
acquire and field new capabilities in response to urgent needs on the
battlefield by expanding the authority of the Department of Defense to
waive statutory requirements when urgently needed to save lives on the
battlefield.
The bill would fully fund the President's request to train and equip
the Afghan National Army and Afghan Police--growing the capabilities of
these security forces to prepare them to take over increased
responsibility for Afghanistan's security.
The bill would extend for another year the authority for the
Secretary of Defense to transfer equipment coming out of Iraq as our
troops withdraw to the security forces of Iraq and Afghanistan,
providing through that transfer an important tool for our commanders
looking to accelerate the growth of these security forces.
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 would require the Department of Defense to
establish a comprehensive process for evaluating and addressing urgent
operational needs identified on the battlefield.
The bill would address shortcomings in the management of private
security contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan by making contractors
expressly responsible for the conduct of their subcontractors and
establishing specific contractual remedies for failures to comply with
the requirements and directives.
The bill would require the Department of Defense to establish
acquisition baselines for the Missile Defense Agency's programs and
provide annual reports to Congress on progress toward achieving those
baselines.
The bill also includes important legislative provisions that would
promote DOD's cybersecurity and energy security efforts--two important
initiatives that would help strengthen our national defense and our
Nation.
This bill does include a handful of contentious provisions on which
there is disagreement in the Senate. These provisions were debated in
committee. I expect them to be debated again on the Senate floor, if we
can proceed tomorrow, as I hope we can. We are going to have votes on a
number of those issues and other contentious issues, and the Senate
will work its will if we are allowed to get to the point where we can
debate this bill.
One of the issues which has been raised is whether amendments should
be offered or are offerable to this bill, such as the DREAM Act, which
are not
[[Page S7194]]
relevant to the bill. The Senator from Arizona recently said the
following, and he has repeated it:
[F]or many, many years, we never put any extraneous items
on the [DOD authorization] bill, because it was so important
to defense and we just didn't allow it.
He continued:
Starting last year, Carl Levin and Harry Reid put hate
crimes on it.
The Senator from Arizona is incorrect. He is incorrect on a number of
accounts. First of all, the Senate previously considered hate crimes
amendments to the national defense authorization bill. We did it in
2001. We did it in 2005. We did it again in 2008 on the national
defense authorization bill. It was not the first time that hate crimes
was added to the defense authorization bill, and each time the hate
crimes amendment was approved by overwhelming bipartisan votes: 57 to
42, 65 to 33, and 60 to 39. It received anywhere from 8 to 18
Republican votes. The only thing that was new about last year's action
relative to hate crimes was that for the first time the provision was
not dropped in conference. It was included in the enacted legislation.
Secondly, the Senator from Arizona is incorrect when he says ``we
never put any extraneous items on the [defense authorization] bill . .
. we just didn't allow it'' is incorrect for another reason. During our
consideration of Defense Authorization Acts over the last dozen years,
and before, the Senate has debated other amendments, nonrelevant
amendments, on many issues, including on concealed weapons, indecency
standards, the extension of pay-go budget procedures, and secret holds
on nominations, among other issues.
As a matter of fact, in the year 2000, the Senator from Arizona
offered a nonrelevant amendment to the defense authorization bill. His
amendment proposed to require campaign finance disclosure by the so-
called 527 organizations as an amendment to national defense
authorization. Senator Warner opposed it, as floor manager of the bill.
Senator Warner, as chairman and floor manager, argued it was not
relevant to the bill. Indeed, Senator Warner argued it could endanger
the passage of the bill and urged Senator McCain not to offer that
nonrelevant amendment. Senator McCain's response:
I yield to no one in this body as to my advocacy for our
Nation's defense and the men and women in the military.
He continued:
But if we want to give these men and women in the military
confidence in their Government, we should have fully
disclosed who it is that contributes to the political
campaigns.
When Senator Warner was asked if he was upset with Senator McCain for
tying up the Senate with nonrelevant amendments on the defense
authorization bill, Senator Warner stated:
I don't get upset at anything. The man--
The Senator he is referring to, Senator McCain--
is acting under the rules.
I supported the McCain amendment at that time, and I also supported
the right of the Senator from Arizona to offer it, not because it was
relevant to the defense authorization bill--it was not--but because it
was the only opportunity, apparently, to consider that bill, and it was
the right thing to do, in my judgment.
By a vote of 57 to 42, the Senate agreed, and the nonrelevant McCain
amendment was adopted to the defense authorization bill. By the way, by
comparison, last year's hate crimes amendment was adopted by a vote of
63 to 28.
Particular concern has also been expressed about the committee's
decision to cut $1 billion of the $2 billion that the President
requested for the Iraq Security Forces Fund. This decision of the
committee was consistent with the previously expressed view of the
Armed Services Committee and of the Congress that the Government of
Iraq should assume a greater responsibility for the financial burden of
building Iraqi security forces as U.S. forces draw down.
The Iraqis are in a better position to pay for their defense than we
are. Last year, we provided only $1 billion. We should not be
increasing that amount as Iraqi resources and finances get stronger and
their oil revenues get higher.
The American taxpayers have already paid over $18 billion to build
the capacity of the Iraqi Army and police. By contrast, the Government
of Iraq has failed to adequately invest in its own security forces.
According to a recent DOD report, the Iraqi Ministry of Defense
requested $7.4 billion in 2010, but the Ministry of Finance approved
only $4.9 billion, choosing to fund little more than personnel costs
and to rely almost entirely on the United States to pay for even the
most basic equipment needed by the Iraqi Army. Iraq, which according to
GAO analysis, has a cumulative budget surplus of $52 billion through
the end of fiscal year 2009 and as much as $5 billion in unspent
security funds, should be well positioned to pay for its own military
equipment instead of coming to us for large handouts.
The argument has been made that the money the committee cut from the
Iraqi Security Forces Fund was used to pay for porkbarrel projects.
However, the definition of ``porkbarrel projects'' used for this
purpose appears to be anything other than what the administration
requests. I question why spending money on Iraqi troops should be
considered good government, but if we spend the same amount of money on
our own military instead, it is considered wasteful porkbarrel
spending. We could have no higher priority as a committee or as a
Congress than supporting our own defense, and I am proud of the fact
that our bill would increase the money available for this purpose by
cutting back on subsidies for the Iraqis.
Here is the process we use in our committee. This is how we
accomplish where we are today. Every year, our committee staff works
hard to identify excess or unneeded spending in the Defense budget
request. For example, we identify unsuccessful programs where we appear
to be sending good money after bad, programs that are getting money
before they need it or are getting more money than they can reasonably
spend in a year; programs that cannot spend all the money they have
because of schedule delays, and programs that are scheduled to receive
funding increases, even though the requirement is declining. We would
not be doing our job for the Congress and the American people if we
fail to undertake a thorough review and to cut excess or unneeded
spending from the budget. When we find unneeded spending, we are then
able to shift it to support added force structure or force
modernization and the quality of life for our troops. This is much the
same process that the Secretary of Defense goes through to identify
excess overhead, duplicative programs and other wasteful spending and
shift the funds to higher priority defense needs.
This year, we reviewed the Department's $725 billion budget proposal
and identified several billion dollars of unneeded spending--just over
one-half of 1 percent of the total budget. What did we spend the money
on? Mainly modernizing weapons systems, supporting readiness, and
supporting the troops. More specifically, this is what the committee
proposes to spend the money on that was cut as unneeded from other
programs.
This is a relatively long list, but I do wish to give a fairly
extensive list of what the additional spending was by the Armed
Services Committee when we found that some of the spending in the
budget was unneeded for the reasons I just gave.
Here is a list: $532 million to fully fund high-priority requirements
identified by the Chief of Naval Operations for ship depot maintenance,
aircraft depot maintenance, and spare parts; $363 million to improve
missile defense capabilities against existing regional missile threats
and provide better protection against such missiles for our deployed
forces and our allies; $337 million to fully fund high priority weapons
sustainment and depot maintenance requirements identified by the Air
Force Chief of Staff; $325 million to procure additional F-18 aircraft
to address a looming shortfall of strike fighter aircraft and take
advantage of better prices we will get through a multiyear contract;
$310 million for new facilities, all of which meet the McCain-Glenn
screening requirements for military construction and have been
determined by the military to be mission essential, to support
operations and training, and ensure that our troops are ready for
deployment; $244 million to augment the capability of our
communications satellites, continue the
[[Page S7195]]
development of infrared sensors for next-generation satellites, and
provide for improved space protection and space situational awareness;
$213 million for advanced technologies, for advanced weapons systems,
including basic and applied research and materials, science for lighter
and stronger materials, new sensors, lasers, and information
technology; $184 million for unfunded procurement priorities identified
by the Army Chief of Staff to meet force protection, mobility,
communication, and other needs for deployed forces in Afghanistan,
including the Line of Communication Bridge, the Lightweight Counter-
Mortar Radar, the Defense Advanced Global Positioning System Receiver,
the Tactical Local Area Network, and the Forward Entry Device for the
artillery tactical data system; $170 million for the Department's
Energy Conservation Improvement Program to competitively fund
meritorious programs that have a savings-to-investment ratio of 1.25 or
higher and a simple payback period of 10 years or less; $113 million
for unfunded requirements identified by the Commander of U.S. Special
Operations Command for ground mobility vehicles, deployable
communications equipment, thermal and night vision goggles, and
nonlethal weapons technologies; $102 million to continue the JSTARS
reengining program to ensure that these aircraft have the onstation
capability needed to provide real-time intelligence to our ground
forces engaged in combat; $100 million to enhance the safety and
reliability of our nuclear weapons by providing funding needed for
facility design, maintenance, and upgrades, provide diagnostic
equipment, and address operational safety issues; $100 million for new
quality-of-life facilities such as dormitories, emergency service
centers, and health clinics, all of which have been determined by the
military to be mission essential; $88 million for research and
development to reduce the Department's dependency on fossil fuels
through improved energy storage, power systems, renewable energy
production, and energy efficiency in Defense programs; $78 million for
intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance activities and programs
that are delivering critical capabilities for our troops in
Afghanistan; $78 million to meet antiterrorism and force protection
requirements at military bases; $76 million to improve the combat
capability of Navy submarines; $72 million for improved medical care
for our troops and their families, including $22 million for continuity
of medical care and to prevent increases in fees and $50 million for
critical medical research on trauma care, blast injuries, visual
impairment, and other battlefield-related injuries; $71 million to
improve the Navy's ability to operate with unmanned systems, improve
countermeasures and improve the ability of DOD air and sea systems to
handle threats from enemy missiles and shoulder-fired weapons and make
operational system improvements on Navy ships; $70 million to modernize
Navy facilities and improve their capability to support current
operations and new technology developments; $59 million for upgrades
for Army weapons systems to enhance operational capabilities and
modernize the force; $58 million for cyber-security technology
development and demonstrations to enhance protections available for
critical DOD infrastructure and information; $57 million for advanced
manufacturing technologies to reduce the time required to produce high-
demand items such as body and vehicle armor, IED jammers and MRAP
vehicles and to modernize the Department of Defense test capabilities
facilities to ensure that new weapons systems meet warfighter
requirements; $56 million for communications facilities and special
operations facilities, all of which have been determined by the
military to be mission essential; $46 million for nonproliferation
programs, including the screening of cargo containers coming into the
United States, plutonium disposition, and related research and
development; $45 million for Impact Aid to ensure a quality education
for military dependents by compensating local school districts that
lose property tax revenue due to the presence of tax-exempt military
installations; $35 million for the National Guard to assist State and
local law enforcement with counternarcotics operations; $34 million for
the Department of Defense inspector general to continue growth designed
to provide more effective oversight and help identify waste, fraud, and
abuse in Department of Defense programs; $30 million to reduce
technical risk and increase program performance in the Army's Paladin
self-propelled howitzer integrated management program; $26 million
for simulators and trainers for the Army to reduce training costs and
increase the preparedness of our troops for the battlefield in Iraq and
Afghanistan; and $25 million to fund a competitive program to protect
critical mission training sites by preventing or reducing encroachment
through the creation of compatible-use buffer zones.
These are real military needs. These are not ``bridges to nowhere''--
quite the opposite. This year, we took $75 million that the Department
of Defense planned to spend on military museums and spent it instead on
more immediate military needs consistent with our committee policy that
military museums should be funded through private donations rather than
taxpayer funds.
I am not going to tell the Presiding Officer or anybody else that
every judgment the committee made was correct. There is no way I could
agree to that. In fact, some of the decisions we made I didn't agree
with, but I can say the money that was added was added for what we saw
as needed measures to modernize our forces and provide for our troops.
Others may disagree. Some may honestly believe that any spending not
included in the administration budget, no matter how important it may
be to the military, is wasteful. However, we will not be able to have
that debate and vote on any amendments to the funding proposed by the
committee unless we vote tomorrow to proceed to consideration of this
bill.
We currently have 50,000 U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines
on the ground in Iraq and roughly twice as many in Afghanistan. While
there are some issues on which we may disagree, I think we all know we
must provide our troops the support they need as long as they remain in
harm's way. Senate action on the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2011 will improve the quality of life of our men and women
in uniform. It will give them the tools they need to remain the most
effective fighting force in the world. Most important of all, it will
send an important message that we as a nation stand behind them and
appreciate their service.
I hope our colleagues will allow us to proceed to consideration of
this bill. There obviously will be many amendments offered, some to
change or strike the language which is in the bill. That is
understandable. There will be some amendments aimed at adding
provisions to the bill, and that is not unusual either. As I said, both
relevant and nonrelevant amendments have been debated to this bill in
the past. It is not unusual. It complicates, obviously, the life of the
manager, but that is what we are here for, to consider amendments--both
relevant and nonrelevant amendments--to the bill and to try to get a
Defense bill passed.
I hope we can make progress on this bill this week. As somebody who
may be overly optimistic, I would love to see this bill passed prior to
our next recess. But our goal should be to make progress on this bill,
and in order to do that, we will need to adopt cloture tomorrow. I hope
the Senate does that.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will be brief because I know there will
be a lot more debate tomorrow.
The distinguished chairman just mentioned a number of authorized
programs that sound pretty good. They were put in without debate,
discussion or amendments. He also left out several that might be of
interest to taxpayers, which may be the reason why we see such anger
about the kind of spending--out-of-control spending and unnecessary
spending.
Here is $1 million for foreign language correlation and translation;
$3 million for plant-based vaccine development; $4.5 million for
decision and energy reduction tool. The list goes on and on. Here is $5
million for operator driving simulator; $1 million for Permafrost
Tunnel; $2.5 million for body temperature conditioner.
[[Page S7196]]
All of these, in the eyes of the chairman, are more important than
taking care of our allies and cementing success in our operations in
Iraq, which was a result of the surge which the chairman, of course,
adamantly opposed.
Here is $7.6 million for a Quiet Propulsion Load House; $3 million
for tribology research. The list goes on and on: $8 million for a
physical fitness center.
By the way, none of these were requested by the Department of
Defense.
So we will be going into this some more tomorrow, and we will request
an earmark for where they went--one of the key elements of it. None of
it is completed. All of those earmarks are designated for certain
places and certain manufacturers. It is something the people of this
country, again, steadfastly are in opposition to.
I was interested to hear the chairman talk about amendments being
allowed and that there will be debate and discussion. That is not the
message we got through the media, which the majority leader didn't
share with us. My understanding is that we are going to take up three
issues. He is going to fill up the tree, which means no other
amendments will be allowed. The issues will be the secret holds, the
DREAM Act, and, of course, don't ask, don't tell. I hope the chairman
is accurate here because there are many issues that many Americans
would feel are very important: treatment of terrorists, Guantanamo Bay,
and so many other issues that affect the readiness of the men and women
and their training and ability, as opposed to the DREAM Act and a
repeal of don't ask, don't tell.
Let me point out again that this issue is not on don't ask, don't
tell, not an assessment of the effect on the readiness and morale of
the men and women in the military. This language is a repeal, then
signed onto by the President of the United States, the Secretary of
Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. One wonders,
what about the Chief of Staff of the Army? What about the Chief of
Naval Operations, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and the Chief of
Staff of the Air Force, all of whom have objected to this provision
because it is being railroaded through without a proper assessment on
the morale and effectiveness of our military?
I read from the bill itself that this Secretary's memorandum says:
. . . determine any impacts to military readiness, military
effectiveness, unit cohesion [et cetera] that may result from
repeal of the law.
That may result from the repeal of the law. Every provision says that
the law will be repealed if the President, the Secretary of Defense,
and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff sign off on a report that
doesn't assess the effect on morale and readiness of the men and women
in the military. It would only assess impacts of repeal. That is not
right. We are in two wars. Should we not assess the impact on the
readiness, the morale, and effectiveness of the men and women who are
in harm's way, who would be affected by the repeal of don't ask, don't
tell? Should we not have that assessment?
What the chairman has done and what the majority of the Democrats
have done is in blatant disregard for the morale, effectiveness,
recruitment, and retention of the men and women serving in the military
today. Why couldn't we have done what our service chiefs want and what
our senior enlisted people want, and that is an assessment of battle
effectiveness and morale regarding a repeal of it, and then decide
whether to repeal don't ask, don't tell?
This is really a remarkable act on the part of the Democrats because
this is a political issue, just as the DREAM Act is a political issue.
It is a political issue. I understand the season. I understand it is
not that far between now and the elections. But to use the Defense
bill, which has to do with defending our national security interests
when we are in two wars, to pursue a social agenda and legislative
agenda to galvanize voting blocks I think is reprehensible.
We will be talking a lot about this in the next day or so. I appeal
to the American people, who understand what we are about here.
I wish to return to the DREAM Act for another minute. If we enact any
legislation that provides people with citizenship in this country
without securing our borders, then we have placed ourselves in a
situation where we will have more people in this country illegally and
we will have to address that issue again. It is no longer a border
issue; it is a national security issue. The drug cartels and the human
smugglers have now posed a threat to our Nation's security. That is why
our Secretary of State, just a couple weeks ago, said the situation in
Mexico was comparable to that of Colombia in the 1980s, when they had
an active insurgency called the FARC.
To use the Defense authorization bill as a vehicle to enact
legislation, which there would be numerous amendments to, there would
be hours and hours of debate--by the way, the amendment I proposed
about 10 years ago was a rifle shot on a specific issue. This is, of
course, a major piece of legislation that affects at least, I am told,
800,000 people who are living in this country illegally.
I hope that we will return to the days I remember in the past when we
had unlimited amendments, unlimited debate, and that we move forward in
a bipartisan fashion on this issue. Unfortunately, the politicization
of this very important legislation that affects our ability to fight
and win wars is being compromised for short-term political purposes.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative 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 (Mr. Kaufman). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am going to briefly comment on a number
of points the Senator from Arizona made. First, he read a list of items
that he thought were wasteful items that we added to the bill. I went
through a long list of the items we added to the bill, probably three
pages of types of items that we added in the Armed Services Committee
that support the troops, their readiness, their capabilities, their
benefits.
He suggested--in fact, stated that these spending items were put in
the bill without debate, discussion, or amendment. I first want to
comment on that because, as the Presiding Officer knows as a very
valued and esteemed member of our committee, we spent days on markup. I
think we have at least 60 amendments--at least that is my recollection.
Every proposed funding item in this bill and every item of the bill
and report language was shared with the minority staff at least a full
week before the beginning of the markup. This is, by the way, about
twice as much time as was provided by any other committee chairman I
can remember in the 30-plus years I have been here in order to give the
minority staff an opportunity to look at what the proposed markup
documents were.
We then provided the minority staff with several days to suggest
changes to the proposed language. A number of significant changes, as a
matter of fact, were made on the basis of those discussions and
recommendations from the minority staff.
After the changes were made, then the full package was provided to
all the members of the committee and their staffs. Again, several days
earlier than this had been done in any previous year. So every item the
Senator from Arizona mentioned, like every other spending item in the
bill, was subject to amendment in committee. I believe it was 2 days of
committee deliberations. Again, dozens and dozens of amendments were
adopted, some defeated. But a large number of amendments were dealt
with.
The opportunity was more than I think has historically been the case
for the minority staff, and obviously the majority staff as well, to
make recommendations for changes prior to the markup document being
presented to members for amendment, and many of those changes were
made.
Now, just a couple of examples that the Senator from Arizona used as
being evidence of wasteful spending that we added. One was $3 million
for plant-based vaccine development. The background for that $3 million
we added is
[[Page S7197]]
the Department of Defense has been working to develop rapid processes
for manufacturing vaccines for a variety of biological threat agents in
order to safeguard our troops in the battlefield.
The most promising path so far to a speedy response for new vaccines
is the use of plants to produce millions of vaccine doses in a matter
of weeks at a very low cost, as compared to the 6-plus months for
standard production processes that cost many times as much.
So that funding is very valuable funding. I do not think most
objective observers would consider that to be pork. It will help meet
military needs by continuing the progress toward rapid, tailored
vaccine production for new diseases for biological threats.
Another one which was mentioned by my friend from Arizona was the
money we added for a physical fitness center at the Malmstrom Air Force
Base. Now, fitness is a military requirement. According to the Air
Force, the existing fitness center at Malmstrom Air Force Base, which
was built in 1957, so that is now over 50 years ago, ``does not
adequately satisfy personnel or infrastructure demands.'' The Air Force
said in the absence of a new fitness center, ``there will continue to
be very few options to maintain physical fitness during the winter
months.'' The project meets the criteria established for military
construction projects more than a decade ago by Senators Glenn and
McCain.
Those are just a couple of the items Senator McCain mentioned.
Another point the Senator from Arizona made is that the language
relative to don't ask, don't tell does not give the Department of
Defense the opportunity to consider the impact of the change on morale
and readiness, recruiting and retention of our troops. Here is what the
language of our bill does. We were very careful in order to be sure
there would be a certification that there would be no negative impact
in terms of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion,
and recruiting and retention.
We changed the language in the bill so it was not a direct repeal of
don't ask, don't tell, but rather that that policy is going to stay in
effect explicitly. This is in subsection C, that don't ask, don't tell
shall remain in effect until such time that all of the requirements and
certifications by subsection B are met. If these requirements and
certifications are not met, section 654 of title 10--that is the don't
ask, don't tell policy--shall remain in effect.
One of the certifications that is required before there is a change
in policy says:
The implementation of necessary policies and regulations
pursuant to the discretion provided by the amendments made by
subsection F--
Here is the key language--
is consistent with the standards of military readiness,
military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and
retention of the Armed Forces.
This policy will stay in effect unless and until there is, No. 1, a
report--which is underway now--which the Secretary of Defense is going
to provide to the Congress relative to the impact of the change in
policy. But, secondly, the policy will stay in effect until the
President transmits--that is unless and until--the President transmits
to the congressional defense committees a written certification signed
by the President, Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, stating, again, the standards of military readiness, military
effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed
Forces are being met and would be met with a change in policy.
Those are just two points the Senator from Arizona made that I wish
to commend at this time. I believe there is going to be opportunity for
further debate tomorrow something like an hour and a half in the
morning, although that is being worked on at this time.
But further debate on this bill can be had by anybody who wishes to
proceed to it. But I hope we can proceed to the consideration of this
bill. This is a motion to proceed to consideration of the bill. All the
rights of filibustering and extended debate will be preserved on the
bill itself if we can only get to debate the bill. Amendments will be
available. Either amendments adding or amendments striking will be
available.
But we have to get to the bill. I mean, people are making arguments
about the bill which belong at the time of the debate on the bill. But
unless we can get to the point where we can debate the bill, it is kind
of a theoretical debate we are having--whether it is don't ask, don't
tell, whether it is the DREAM Act, whether it is other things which
people would either like to change that are in the bill or would like
to add to the bill.
As my good friend from Delaware who is presiding at the moment knows,
there are provisions in this bill that I opposed in committee that I
would like to see stricken from the bill. But to oppose debate on a
bill because there are provisions in the bill that we do not like or we
would like to see added, it seems to me, engages in an exercise which
is not what the intent of the Senate ever was. We should debate bills.
We should amend bills. We should offer amendments to strike provisions,
to add provisions. But to deny the Senate the opportunity to get to the
point where we are debating on the Defense authorization bill is
something which seems to me totally unacceptable.
We need to support our troops. This bill is a bill to support the men
and women wearing the uniform of this country and their families. One
can argue there are provisions in this bill which should not be in the
bill. Fine. Debate them. Vote on them. But to say we should not get to
the bill which contains provisions so critical for the well being and
success of our men and women in the Armed Forces, it seems to me, is
totally inconsistent with what the Armed Services Committee and this
Senate need to be about, which is providing for the defense and
security of the country and the well being of the men and women who put
on the uniform of this country.
So I hope we will get cloture tomorrow and proceed to the debate,
which is totally appropriate, on a whole bunch of issues.
I yield the floor and 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________