[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 17094-17095]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION

  Mr. REID. Madam President, changing direction here a little bit, I 
say to Dr. Church, and others, I want to take up where we left off last 
night. I have thought about what status we are in here today. It is so 
disheartening to me. We took up this bill, this very important Defense 
authorization bill, Wednesday, very late in the day. Statements were 
given by the two managers.
  We came to do our work yesterday, and we worked hard, and we were 
suddenly struck with the suggestion--we thought it was just some of the 
rumors that happen around here in the Senate that could not be valid. I 
called the majority leader: You are not going to file cloture on the 
Defense authorization bill after 1 day of debate, are you? And he said: 
Yes. I said: Well, Bill, I am going to go to the floor and complain 
about that because that is wrong.
  Now, let me say, Madam President, on this issue I do not agree with a 
number of my Senators, but the thing he wants to take up next is an NRA 
bill, a bill dealing with gun liability. Fine. But at the expense of 
the defense of this country? What are we coming to around here? What 
are we coming to here? After 1 day of debate we are getting off to do 
gun liability? We can do that in September when we come back here, or 
finish this bill.
  I want the American public to know what is happening. My dear friend, 
the senior Senator from Virginia, got up yesterday and, in his 
gentlemanly way, said: Well, it is my fault. It is not his fault. Let's 
be realistic about it. He does not determine when cloture motions are 
filed. It is done by the Republican leadership in this Senate. To think 
we are moving off of this bill after 1 full day of debate, and cloture 
is filed, should be an embarrassment to this leadership that is leading 
this Senate.
  I attended a funeral on the Saturday I came back here a couple weeks 
ago in Boulder City, NV. A 21-year-old man was killed in service to our 
country. He was a Navy SEAL named Shane Patton. The SEALs are a very 
small, elite group. His commander there at that funeral cried because 
he had lost one of his men. I think we owe more to Shane and his 
family--his father was also a frogman, as they are called, Jim Patton.
  The distinguished ranking member will today go over how much time we 
have spent on these Defense bills in years past. I guarantee you, it 
has been more than 1 day of full debate. People are going to say: Well, 
we are here on Friday.
  We don't dispose of anything here today. We will offer some 
amendments. We will have no votes. We will vote late Monday, a few 
hours before cloture will be voted on.
  Madam President, I don't know if I can deliver, but I am going to 
try. I am going to try to deliver my Democratic Senators to oppose 
cloture. See, I have been around here a little bit. I understand the 
games that are being played. The Republican leader wants to blame us 
for not having the Defense bill go forward. Well, I want the record to 
be spread, it is not us. It is them. I am going to do everything within 
my power to stop cloture from being invoked on this bill. We deserve 
better than this. Shane Patton deserves more than this. In his memory, 
we deserve more than 1 day of debate--a 21-year-old man, dead.
  We have had one recorded vote on this bill. We could have had more, 
but we had to stop voting yesterday early. We have offered four 
amendments on this side. If cloture is invoked, Members of this body 
will be denied the opportunity to debate and vote on major issues.
  What kind of major issues? Well, such as ensuring that our troops, 
active and retired, get the pay and benefits they have earned. No time 
to debate our course in Iraq. I don't know if I am being a little too 
political here, but let's think about this a little bit. We are 
spending about $2 billion a week in Iraq--$2 billion a week in Iraq. I 
wonder, as to just that alone, should we spend more than 1 day here in 
the Senate on this bill? Two billion dollars a week.
  I wonder if there should be a little debate here on a Defense 
authorization bill about what is going on in Iraq.
  What about the fact that we need to spend a little time talking about 
the spread of weapons of mass destruction? A report was issued on 
Tuesday, led by former Defense Secretary Perry, that we have a lot of 
loose nukes, that the real problem we have in this country, as far as 
our security goes, is what to do about these loose nukes. I think that 
deserves a little bit of time. Should we spend a little bit of time 
addressing the detainee abuse scandal? I think that would be a good 
idea. We can't do this unless we have time to debate issues and have 
some votes. The Defense authorization bill in years past hasn't taken 
days; it has taken weeks to complete. No one is trying to slow up 
things. I support gun manufacturers liability legislation. Jack Reed 
who doesn't like it, but I have kept him advised every step of the way. 
I support that legislation, but not at the expense of Shane Patton.
  If cloture is not invoked, does that mean the leader, who has the 
right to pull this bill off the floor, will pull it off and go to gun 
liability and forget the promise he made to the Hawaiian Senators, a 
promise that he made that we would do native Hawaiian legislation?
  The move that is taking place in the Senate regarding the defense of 
our country is unprecedented. The Armed Services Committee keeps 
records back to 1987. These records are thorough and highly accurate. 
During that period, approximately the last 18 years, no majority leader 
has filed cloture on the Defense authorization bill after so little 
time and so little action. Doing so now during a time of war, when more 
than 200,000 of our troops are in harm's way looking for our support, 
would be as disturbing as it is unprecedented.
  As it stands now, if the majority leader proceeds with this motion, 
it is entirely possible that the Senate will vote to cut off debate on 
this legislation before we will have a single vote on a Democratic 
amendment--a single vote. Let me repeat, it is possible we will have 
voted to cut off debate before we have voted on a single Democratic 
amendment. We can go back before 1987. I can't believe anything like 
that has ever happened.
  If this cloture motion is successful, those who support it are 
sending one message--they do not believe the Senate should debate the 
important national security issues that are very much on the minds of 
our troops, their families, and the American people. At the same time, 
the majority leader has apparently concluded we should cut off debate 
on this critical legislation after less than 3 days, only one of which 
is a real day--around here we don't do anything on Fridays and Mondays. 
We travel. We go around raising money. We don't have votes. We are down 
to a 2\1/2\-day workweek here. But we could spend more than a month, 
more than 30 days on five judges, every one of which had a job. A third 
of our time in the Senate has been spent on five people, all of whom 
had jobs.
  The majority leader's decision raises an important question. Why 
would we prematurely cut off debate on critical national security 
legislation? Why would we want to prevent the Senate from doing 
everything we can to help our men and women in uniform? The Senator 
from Michigan and the Senator from Virginia are role models for how to 
work together on legislation. He has some ideas that he wants to try to 
improve this bill. There are other Members who have amendments that are 
waiting. The Senator from Massachusetts has some ideas on how he wants 
to try to improve this legislation. But unfortunately, the answer to 
these questions is very familiar. Rather than address the concerns on 
the minds of the American people, our Republican colleagues are once 
again insisting the Senate focus its time on less important business. 
Earlier this year, we put judges ahead of health care, retirement 
security, education. Now they are apparently willing to put gun 
liability--and I have heard now estate tax--ahead of the needs of our 
troops.
  Frankly, this action is not in keeping with the spirit in which this 
bill came to the Senate floor. To this point the

[[Page 17095]]

process has been completely bipartisan. I should say nonpartisan. As I 
have already said, the chairman and ranking member, as well as the 
other Republicans and Democrats on the Armed Services Committee, worked 
together to see that our security needs were addressed. Republicans and 
Democrats even on the committee, after reporting the bill out, said: We 
have a few things we would like to a try to address to the whole Senate 
to see if we can make the whole bill better.
  The chairman welcomed input from Members on both sides of the aisle, 
as did the ranking member. He made no attempt to prevent Members from 
addressing critical issues or cut off debate, and he should be lauded 
for the course he chose. The majority leader should follow his example.
  We want to pass this bill. We want to pass it before we go home for 
the August recess. That is why, for the past 2 months, I have been on 
this floor urging us to move to this bill. But, no, we couldn't because 
we were tied up with judges, the nuclear option. We were happy when he 
finally brought it to the floor 2 days ago. But little did we know it 
was apparently just an effort to get another thing off the shelf. We 
are here, ready to debate the numerous important issues raised by the 
legislation. We won't be able to do that.
  I hope the Republican leadership will reconsider this action. Let us 
get back to work on this important bill. I repeat: We are going to 
oppose cloture, and that is the only thing we can do, in my mind, to 
make sure that Shane Patton and the other approximately 2,000 men and 
women who have been killed in Iraq and the scores who have been killed 
in Afghanistan will have at least the attention of the Senate for a few 
days.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I listened carefully to my good 
friend from Nevada, the Democratic leader. I don't want to unduly 
prolong the discussion because Chairman Warner and Ranking Member Levin 
are here to do business on the bill. The more the Democratic leader and 
myself talk, the less able they are to offer amendments and move 
forward with the bill.
  I would say this, however. I don't know that it is written on some 
tablet somewhere that we need to spend multiple weeks on a DOD 
authorization bill, particularly in a time of war. We turned to this 
bill last Wednesday night. That is Wednesday night, Thursday, Friday, 
Monday, and Tuesday before the cloture vote would ripen. During all of 
that time, Senators could offer nongermane amendments. And then if 
cloture is invoked, there are 30 additional hours for amendments to be 
offered that are germane to the Defense bill. I don't think there is 
any particular reason why the Senate ought not to, particularly in a 
time of war, do this bill in a more expeditious manner and allow us to 
also complete other matters before the Senate, one of which the 
Democratic leader just pointed out he is in favor of, before we leave 
next week. We are open for business this morning. Chairman Warner and 
Senator Levin are here. Others are here who want to offer amendments. 
We encourage that. That is why we are in session today.
  My suggestion to all of us is that we move forward with the business 
that is before the Senate this morning.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The minority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I don't need to get the last word, but I 
have to get make sure the facts are spread across this Senate. Let's 
not be misled. Wednesday, opening statements; Thursday, one amendment 
voted on; Friday, nothing voted on; Monday, nothing voted on. I guess 
we will vote Monday night sometime. Tuesday, please help me on that, we 
ought to vote this Tuesday morning. And then to talk about 30 hours 
afterwards, that is one of the biggest farces we have around here. If 
you are lucky, you can have a vote or two during the 30 hours, but 
remember, there is no necessity to have a vote on anything. It is all 
up to the majority what they let us vote on.
  In a time of war, does that mean we speed through this? I would think 
that we should take an inordinate amount of time, lots of time, when we 
are in a state of war. And we are in a state of war. Just ask the 
people of Great Britain.
  I am glad we are here to do business today. The managers are here. 
Senator Kennedy is here to offer an amendment. But especially in a time 
of war, let's at least do the average amount of debate on this bill.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I don't want to prolong it any 
further because we are taking up time for the offering of amendments 
which we encourage. We are anxious to have amendments. We are willing 
to have votes. We are not trying to deny anybody the opportunity to 
offer their amendment or to have votes. That is why the chairman and 
ranking member are here today. I see Senator Warner is ready to do 
business.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________