[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 20]
[Senate]
[Pages 27589-27594]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set side so I may say a few words.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, let me begin, first, by thanking Chairman 
Johnson and Senator Hutchison for their fine work in preparing this 
measure before us. Similar to the other appropriations bills for fiscal 
year 2010, this bill, which provides the necessary funding for military 
construction and veterans programs, was prepared by the subcommittee on 
a bipartisan basis.
  I am very pleased to advise my colleagues in the Senate that the 
committee endorsed the bill unanimously and forwarded this matter to 
the Senate for consideration.
  As my colleagues are aware, we are already more than 1 month into the 
new fiscal year, and we simply need to complete our work on this 
measure.

[[Page 27590]]

  Moreover, Wednesday is Veterans Day. It would truly send the right 
message to our veterans for the Senate to pass this bill before 
November 11.
  Again, I wish to commend the chairman and Senator Hutchison for their 
fine work on this measure and urge its adoption.


                           Amendment No. 2754

  Mr. President, I rise to discuss amendment No. 2754, which has been 
cosponsored by Senators Johnson and Cochran, to reallocate unobligated 
fiscal year 2009 military construction funding to support President 
Obama's new European missile defense plan. The funding was appropriated 
in last year's appropriations bill for the European missile defense 
sites but can no longer be spent.
  This amendment will enable the Missile Defense Agency to meet the 
President's timelines for defending Europe and the United States sooner 
against Iranian missiles.
  I strongly endorse the President's European missile defense plan. 
This new approach will enhance the protection of our allies in Europe, 
U.S. forces and their families deployed abroad, and the U.S. homeland 
from ballistic missile attack sooner than the previous program.
  It is more robust and responsive to the increasingly pervasive short- 
and medium-range missile threats and is adaptable to longer range 
threats in the future. The new architecture focuses on using the proven 
standard missile-3 on Aegis ships and on land, together with additional 
sensor capability to provide more effective protection for ourselves 
and our allies.
  In order to meet the timelines set out by the President to deploy a 
capability in Europe in the 2015 timeframe, General O'Reilly, Director 
of the Missile Defense Agency, has requested the Congress to reprogram 
$68.5 million to construct an Aegis ashore test facility at the Pacific 
Missile Range Facility in Hawaii. This amendment responds to that 
request.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from 
General O'Reilly requesting this transfer of funds.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                            Department of Defense,


                                       Missile Defense Agency,

                                  Washington, DC, October 7, 2009.
     Hon. Daniel Inouye,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to request your support for 
     reauthorization and reappropriation of $68.5 million of 
     unobligated FY2009 MILCON funds, previously appropriated for 
     deployment of missile defense capabilities in Europe, to 
     support near-term requirements for the President's new Phased 
     Adaptive Approach for missile defense in Europe.
       Our top priority is the establishment of an Aegis Ashore 
     test facility which could also provide an operational 
     ballistic missile defense capability when needed. Due to its 
     strategic location and multi-dimensional testing 
     capabilities, the Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) in 
     Hawaii has been selected as the proposed site for this test 
     facility, and placement of a test launcher at this site could 
     also provide continuous protection for this region. Our goal 
     is to complete this project in time to support the first 
     flight test of the land-based Standard-Missile 3 interceptor 
     in FY2012, which would require construction funding to be 
     available for obligation in FY2010.
       Your support to make these FY2009 MILCON funds available 
     for the Aegis Ashore test facility is essential if we are to 
     implement the President's new Phased Adaptive Approach in 
     time to counter the growing ballistic missile threat. I am 
     prepared to provide you with any additional information you 
     may require.
       Thank you for consideration of this request and your 
     steadfast support for the defense of our Nation.
           Sincerely,
                                              Patrick J. O'Reilly,
                                 Lieutenant General, USA Director.

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, in the letter the general says that 
establishing this test facility is his top priority for the President's 
new plan for missile defense in Europe. He goes on to state:

       Our goal is to complete this project in time to support the 
     first flight test of the land-based standard-missile 3 
     interceptor in FY 2012, which would require construction 
     funding to be available for obligation in FY 2010.

  I offer this amendment with some reservation. It is critical to 
getting missile defense to Europe sooner, but it circumvents the normal 
order of business in the Senate under ordinary circumstances. This 
project should have been authorized in the fiscal year 2010 National 
Defense Authorization Act and then appropriated in the Military 
Construction bill. I take that process seriously and wish to explain to 
my colleagues the special circumstances under which I offer this 
amendment.
  President Obama publicly announced his European missile defense 
strategy on September 17 of this year. This announcement came well 
after the House and Senate Armed Services Committees began the 
conference negotiation process.
  In order to implement the President's new plan, General O'Reilly made 
the request to Congress for an AEGIS ashore test facility on October 7, 
the same day that the House and Senate completed the conference 
agreement on the Defense authorization bill. Due to conflicts in 
timing, the conferees were not able to consider this late request from 
the administration. Thus, an amendment on the fiscal year 2010 Military 
Construction appropriations bill is the best path to get the facility 
started in order to meet the administration's timelines. If there was a 
better way to proceed, I would do so. Unfortunately, these unusual 
circumstances have put us in this situation.
  The fiscal year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act provided 
flexibility for the Missile Defense Agency to spend over $240 million 
of research and development funding in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 to 
purchase equipment associated with the AEGIS ashore test facility and 
begin the development of the new European ballistic missile defense 
architecture. The military construction funding is needed at this time 
in conjunction with the research and development funding to begin 
implementation of the European missile defense plan.
  Let me also make clear that this amendment is not asking for 
additional money. This funding is presently available. The Missile 
Defense Agency has over $150 million in fiscal year 2009 unobligated 
funds that were appropriated for the missile defense sites in the Czech 
Republic and Poland that are no longer needed. This amendment would use 
a portion of those funds to begin construction of the AEGIS ashore test 
facility in fiscal year 2010.
  Lastly, let me comment on the site chosen for the AEGIS ashore test 
facility. According to the Missile Defense Agency, the Pacific Missile 
Range Facility on the island of Kauai has been the center of excellence 
for AEGIS ballistic missile defense testing for the last 12 years and 
will continue in that regard for the next decade. Indeed, just 2 weeks 
ago, the Pacific Missile Range Facility hosted the successful intercept 
test of the Japanese AEGIS ballistic missile defense program. To date, 
the Pacific Missile Range has supported 20 AEGIS tests. In addition, 
PMRF also has a proud track record of testing the Missile Defense 
Agency's Theater High Altitude Area Defense System, with five tests at 
the range since 2007.
  The Pacific Missile Range Facility is the world's largest 
instrumented missile testing and training range. The Department of 
Defense and the Missile Defense Agency, in particular, utilize this 
range due to its relative isolation and ideal year-round climate and 
encroachment-free environment. Furthermore, it is the only range in the 
world where submarines, surface ships, aircraft, and space vehicles can 
operate and be tracked simultaneously. For these reasons, the Missile 
Defense Agency believes the Pacific Missile Range Facility is the ideal 
location to support AEGIS ashore testing.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. If this test facility 
does not get started in fiscal year 2010, the Missile Defense Agency 
will not be able to meet the flight test scheduled to demonstrate AEGIS 
ashore capability prior to the administration's proposed 2015 
deployment date to Europe. It is a very important amendment.


                Amendment No. 2754 to Amendment No. 2730

  Madam President, I now call up amendment No. 2754 and ask for its 
consideration.

[[Page 27591]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], for himself, Mr. 
     Cochran, and Mr. Johnson, proposes an amendment numbered 2754 
     to amendment No. 2730.

  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To permit $68,500,000, as requested by the Missile Defense 
Agency of the Department of Defense, to be used for the construction of 
  a test facility to support the Phased Adaptive Approach for missile 
                   defense in Europe, with an offset)

       On page 27, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
       Sec. 128. (a)(1) The amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this title under the heading ``Military 
     Construction, Defense-Wide'' is hereby increased by 
     $68,500,000, with the amount of such increase to remain 
     available until September 30, 2014.
       (2) Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made available 
     by this title under the heading ``Military Construction, 
     Defense-Wide'', as increased by paragraph (1), $68,500,000 
     shall be available for the construction of an Aegis Ashore 
     Test Facility at the Pacific Missile Range Facility, Hawaii. 
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, such funds may be 
     obligated and expended to carry out planning and design and 
     construction not otherwise authorized by law.
       (b) Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made available 
     by title I of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs 
     Appropriations Act, 2009 (division E of Public Law 110-329; 
     122 Stat. 3692) under the heading ``Military Construction, 
     Defense-Wide'' and available for the purpose of European 
     Ballistic Missile Defense program construction, $69,500,000 
     is hereby rescinded.

  Mr. INOUYE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold the request for a 
quorum call?
  Mr. INOUYE. I set aside my request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to, No. 1, offer 
an amendment, which I will do in 3 or 4 minutes, and then spend 3 or 4 
minutes on that amendment and then ask unanimous consent for 15 minutes 
to talk on the Executive Calendar as well as speak in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2757 to Amendment No. 2730

  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask that the pending amendment be set 
aside and that amendment No. 2757 be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2757 to amendment No. 2730.

  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       (Purpose: To require public disclosure of certain reports)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. ___. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act and except as provided in subsection (b), any report 
     required to be submitted by a Federal agency or department to 
     the Committee on Appropriations of either the Senate or the 
     House of Representatives in this Act shall be posted on the 
     public website of that agency upon receipt by the committee.
       (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to a report if--
       (1) the public posting of the report compromises national 
     security; or
       (2) the report contains proprietary information.

  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, this is a very straightforward 
amendment. This is an amendment I have offered on all appropriations 
bills to date. We passed it on Housing and Urban Development-
Transportation. We passed it on Energy and Water. We passed it on 
Interior. We passed it on the Defense appropriations bill. It is an 
amendment that says that the reports that are asked for in this 
appropriations bill, unless there is reason to not yield to the people 
of this country the information contained in that report for either 
national security or defense purposes, that those studies will be made 
available to the American citizens and the rest of the Senate.
  Each appropriations bill, in proper fashion and by a good job by the 
Appropriations Committee, asks for reports and reviews on how the money 
is spent. All this amendment does is require that the reports that are 
required to be submitted by a Federal agency in this act be posted on a 
public Web site of that agency for all Members of Congress and all 
Americans to see. There is an exception for reports that contain 
classified or proprietary information.
  In the House and Senate version of this bill, the following reports 
are--I won't go through all of them--what action DOD and the State 
Department have taken to encourage host countries to assume a greater 
share of the defense burden--that is something that ought to be shared 
with the American people; an annual report on operation and maintenance 
expenditures for each individual general or flag officer quarters at 
each of our bases around the country during the prior year; a report of 
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on approved major construction 
projects for which funds are not obligated within the timeframe 
provided for in the act--in other words, to know what we are getting 
ready to spend, what is obligated; a report detailing the current 
planned use of property estimated to have greater than $1 million in 
annual rental costs; a detailed report on how the $3 billion that has 
already been appropriated for information technology projects at the 
Veterans Administration' is spent, including operations and maintenance 
costs, salaries, and expenses by individual project; and then finally, 
a quarterly report on the financial status of the Veterans' 
Administration, a health status.
  This is just plain, good, open government. It creates transparency, 
and it allows the American people to hold us to account. By requiring 
that Federal agencies produce reports funded in this bill and publicize 
them on a Web site, everybody will have easy access to the reports. 
That is not the case today in the Senate or in the Congress. Evaluating 
and reading these reports may prompt a congressional hearing, Federal 
legislation, or even termination of a Federal program or policy.
  This is a straightforward amendment. It is my hope our colleagues 
will accept this amendment and it will become part of this 
appropriations bill as well.


                    Nomination of Judge Andre Davis

  Madam President, I now wish to spend a few moments talking about 
Judge Andre Davis, who is the nominee for the Fourth Circuit Court of 
Appeals.
  I sit on the Judiciary Committee, and I voted against Judge Davis's 
nomination coming out of the Judiciary Committee. I thought the 
American people ought to know why.
  He is definitely an individual of integrity. He is a very pleasant 
individual. I enjoyed the banter back and forth during the hearing. But 
as a Federal district judge, Judge Davis has been reversed by the 
Fourth Circuit Court numerous times. A lot of judges get reversed, but 
there is a trend with Judge Davis where we have seen the law 
misapplied. So I have some real concerns. This is a lifetime 
appointment to this circuit court, No. 1. No. 2, the Supreme Court only 
hears 80 cases a year, so if a case comes to a circuit court, most 
often that is a final determination.
  Let me spend a little bit of time on characteristics of these 
reversals because they are very concerning to me. He has been reversed 
by the Fourth Circuit Court in six different cases where he was noted 
to suppress evidence. For those of you like me who are not lawyers, let 
me explain what that means.
  Suppressing evidence in a criminal case most often results in a 
defendant not being convicted of a crime and a victim and their family 
not receiving justice. Not only do the victim and victim's family not 
get justice but the government has to spend taxpayer dollars and 
resources to appeal the case to the next level. Let me give some 
examples.
  In the case of U.S. v. Kimbrough, Judge Davis suppressed the 
statement

[[Page 27592]]

of a defendant who, while in the presence of police, told his mother he 
had a gun in the room. The officer was trying to give him his Miranda 
warnings at the time when the mother asked him if there was anything 
else in the basement, besides the cocaine that was readily visible to 
her and the officer.
  In reversing Judge Davis's decision, the Fourth Circuit offered a 
harsh rebuke stating that since the mother ``is a private citizen, her 
spontaneous questioning of [the defendant] alone, independent of the 
police officers, could never implicate the Fifth Amendment.'' The court 
further stated that Judge Davis's conclusion that ```Miss Kimbrough's 
involvement in questioning her son was the equivalent of official 
custodial interrogation,' . . . is at best incomplete and, taken 
literally, is simply erroneous.'' The Fourth Circuit said that a 
statement made in these circumstances should ``never'' be suppressed 
and Judge Davis's reasoning was ``simply erroneous.''
  In U.S. v. Siegel, Judge Davis suppressed evidence of the defendant's 
20-year history of scheming and plotting to take money from previous 
husbands in a case where the defendant was accused of dating the 
victim, taking his money, and then killing him. The facts of this case 
are particularly worrisome.
  The defendant had met the victim and started dating him, eventually 
taking his money and trying to have him institutionalized. After 
failing at having him institutionalized, she killed the victim and hid 
his body. Although the body was found in 1996, it was not identified 
until 2003. During that time, the defendant remarried and continued to 
collect the man's Social Security checks. When the body was identified, 
Federal agents contacted her and she told them the victim was alive and 
had run off with some other woman. She was arrested and charged with 
murdering the victim to prevent him from reporting her fraud. When the 
prosecution sought to introduce the defendant's prior bad acts at 
trial, Judge Davis refused. According to the Fourth Circuit, Judge 
Davis was concerned about the length of the trial. The Fourth Circuit 
reversed, finding that the evidence was admissible and, because the 
government charged the defendant with committing murder to prevent 
being reported for fraud, this evidence was an essential element of the 
government's case. As for Judge Davis's concern about a lengthy trial, 
the Fourth Circuit concluded that was an improper basis for excluding 
wholesale this clearly probative and relevant evidence of other crimes. 
On remand, the defendant was found guilty.
  In the case of U.S. v. Jamison, Judge Davis suppressed the confession 
of a felon who shot himself, called out to police for help, and then 
gave the confession during the routine police investigation into his 
injury. He was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. 
The court of appeals reversed Judge Davis's ruling and said the man's 
confession was admissible in the case.
  In U.S. v. Custis, the defendant was prosecuted for several Federal 
drug and firearm offenses. The evidence used against him included 
weapons and drugs that were seized by the police from his truck and 
residence. The police search was based on a warrant obtained with 
evidence they compiled from an informant who had given them reliable 
data on the defendant's drug operation. Judge Davis granted the 
defendant's suppression motion, finding that the search warrant was 
faulty. The Fourth Circuit reversed, stating that Judge Davis erred in 
granting the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence, and that if 
Judge Davis had read the supporting affidavit in a ``commonsense, 
rather than hypertechnical manner, as he was required to do,'' he would 
not have excluded the evidence.
  There are many other cases where Judge Davis has incorrectly 
suppressed evidence that I will not go into at this time. There are 
many other reasons, whether it be violating the sentencing levels 
according to the Fourth Circuit, an abuse of discretion, remanding for 
resentencing, or being more than a neutral arbiter in terms of plea 
arrangements. Here is what the Fourth Circuit said about Judge Davis's 
role in terms of the plea arrangements:

       We have not found a single case in which the extent of 
     judicial involvement in plea negotiations equaled that in the 
     case at hand. The district court repeatedly appeared to be an 
     advocate for the pleas rather than as a neutral arbiter, and 
     any fair reading of the record reveals the substantial risk 
     of coerced guilty pleas. We can only conclude that the 
     district court's role as advocate for the defendant's guilty 
     pleas affected the fairness, integrity, and public reputation 
     of judicial proceedings.

  I won't go on, but those six cases I outlined are enough for me to 
not be able to support this judge, who is obviously a very fine 
gentleman and a good man, but who I believe has made some significant 
inexcusable errors on the bench.
  Finally, I want to spend a moment talking about a bill several of my 
colleagues have brought up, and it is the veterans caregivers omnibus 
bill. Regardless of what the news reports say, and my colleagues say, I 
am not opposed to us making sure we keep each and every commitment we 
make to veterans. I think many of the programs that are in this bill 
are ideally suited for the problems our veterans have. What I object to 
is the fact we are going to create $3.7 billion worth of spending--and 
that is a CBO score, not my score, the $3.7 billion worth of spending--
over the next 5 years and not make any effort whatsoever to eliminate 
programs that don't have anywhere near the priority this program does.
  The other thing I object to is the timing. There is no question we 
need to do this, especially for our wounded warriors. But we are 
excluding our Vietnam veterans from having access to this same care, 
and we are excluding the first gulf war veterans from having the same 
access. They have the same needs. Nobody can deny they don't have some 
of the same needs, but we are excluding them, and from a constitutional 
standpoint, I am not sure we can ever get to the point where we would 
agree that is fair treatment for our veterans.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. COBURN. I wish to finish my statement first. I listened to the 
Senator's statement earlier today on the floor, so let me finish my 
statement.
  The other thing that is concerning is we have a bill before us right 
now--this appropriations bill--that has no money for this in it, one, 
and authorizations aren't required. So $280 billion of the money we 
appropriate every year is not authorized. The fact there is no money in 
this bill for this program tells me something, that the urgency of 
getting a press release isn't near the urgency of the needs of our 
veterans. Because if we allow the normal process to happen, it will be 
18 months from now before any money comes forward for this bill.
  Finally, we have offered up a list of programs we think have much 
lower priority than our veterans' health care, and so I think of my 
brother, who is a veteran, and I ask myself: What did he serve for? 
What did he fight for? Did he fight so we could come back here and 
undermine the future by not making the same tough choices that are 
required for every family and, more importantly, not demonstrate the 
courage in our service that the veterans demonstrate in their service--
which is putting yourself at risk to do what is best for our country? 
That is what they do, but we ought to be doing the same thing.
  We ran a very large deficit this last year. Forty-three cents of 
every dollar we spent this last year was borrowed. None of the people 
in this room will ever pay a penny toward that debt. It will be our 
children and grandchildren. And the fact is we will not make the hard 
choices to pay for this so that tomorrow we can say, we are going to 
eliminate these programs so this program can go forward, and we are 
going to take the money that is going for these programs so this 
program can go forward.
  What this appropriations bill does, as a matter of fact, is ask for a 
study from the Veterans' Administration on the need of this bill. So if 
this bill is certainly a priority, the funding for it should have been 
in this appropriations bill, and it is not. Nobody can deny it is not. 
So I come to the question: When will enough be enough? When will we

[[Page 27593]]

stop playing a game on dollars and ultimately make the same hard 
choices and demonstrate the courage our veterans have demonstrated? I 
can't think of many veterans who want now what is paid on the backs of 
their children or grandchildren. What they want to see us do is the 
hard work, as they do the hard work, to put ourselves at risk by 
telling some people no so we can tell veterans yes. What we are doing 
today is we are going to tell veterans yes but we are going to tell our 
children no.
  I can easily outline for my colleagues $300 billion--that is ``B'' 
for billion--of waste, fraud, and duplication in the Federal budget. 
They may disagree with some of that, but there is no question you could 
get a consensus on $3.7 billion of that. On 1 percent of it, you could 
get a consensus. But there is no effort made on this authorization bill 
to create priorities. What we hear all the time is: Well, that is not 
the way it works up here. Authorization bills are simply that, and it 
has to go through the appropriations, and you are not spending any 
money.
  Well, if we are not spending any money on this bill, then we are not 
solving the problems for our veterans. And if we don't have any money 
for this program in this appropriations bill, we are holding out a 
hollow promise.
  I ask my colleagues to work with us. Let's offset the price for this, 
demonstrate the same courage and the same level of commitment. There 
has been no secret on who has said we should not pass this by unanimous 
consent, and there has never been a time that we refused to talk to 
anybody about that.
  My hope is the American people are listening. Sure, we do want to do 
the right things for our veterans, but there has to come a time when we 
are forced to make hard choices, and we are not seeing that. We are not 
seeing that in this bill, and we are not seeing it in the authorization 
for this veterans and caregivers omnibus bill.
  With that, I yield to my colleague from Illinois, and retain the time 
until he has finished asking whatever question he may have.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator from Oklahoma, is the Senator 
suggesting we should open this up to caregivers for veterans of all 
wars?
  Mr. COBURN. Yes, sir.
  Mr. DURBIN. Would the Senator from Oklahoma join me in that endeavor?
  Mr. COBURN. If we are going to do this bill, yes, I would.
  Mr. DURBIN. Would the Senator from Oklahoma also agree that this bill 
was on the calendar long before Veterans Day?
  Mr. COBURN. Absolutely, but when was the hold? Less than 3 weeks ago. 
It wasn't brought to the floor before then.
  Mr. DURBIN. It was brought to the floor on September 25.
  Mr. COBURN. Okay, 5 weeks. Pardon me.
  Mr. DURBIN. Also, I would ask the Senator if he is suggesting we 
should have included the appropriations for this bill before we 
authorized it?
  Mr. COBURN. I would answer my colleague that we do that 280 billion 
times a year.
  Mr. DURBIN. The Senator would endorse that, and wants us to include 
the appropriations before we set up authorizing language?
  Mr. COBURN. What I would tell my colleague is you do it routinely on 
the appropriations bill. So why is this any different?
  My question to my colleague is: If in fact this is so important to 
get done today, knowing there is no money in this bill for this--my 
colleague would agree with that, would he not, that there is no money 
in this appropriations bill for this act? Is that a correct statement?
  Mr. DURBIN. To my knowledge, there is not.
  Mr. COBURN. There is not. So we are going to say we are going to 
authorize something in the hopes that we have to do it right now, 
knowing that unless we have an omnibus or a supplemental this won't 
actually happen until we get to this bill again next year.
  Mr. DURBIN. So is the Senator from Oklahoma conceding an authorizing 
bill does not spend money, since the passage of this authorizing bill, 
as you said, would not spend a penny?
  Mr. COBURN. No, I will not concede that. Because what it does is it 
causes us--and I enjoy debating my colleague from Illinois. Here is my 
point on authorization bills. We can authorize and authorize and 
authorize, and when we do, we are telling veterans they are going to 
get this. That is what we are telling them. We are communicating to 
every veterans organization and we are telling them we are going to do 
this. So if we are going to tell them we are going to do it, we ought 
to put in process the way to do it. And if we are saying it has to 
happen right now, then where is the money? Show me the money to make it 
happen right now.
  The fact is--and I will reclaim my time--we play games, and the game 
we are playing is that we can authorize and send out a press release 
but then we are not held accountable to do what we have authorized. 
There are a lot of good key components in this bill. My objection is 
twofold: One, it discriminates against previous veterans, which I think 
is uncalled for; and two, we don't eliminate any of the waste in terms 
of authorizations so that we more focus the Appropriations Committee.
  There is no question the Appropriations Committee has the power to 
fund money anywhere they want and they do it whether the bills are 
authorized or not authorized. I will be glad to give the Senator from 
Illinois a list of the $280 billion we spend every year that is not 
authorized. It is a spurious argument to state that we should not have 
fiscal accountability when we authorize programs. We should have and we 
ought to make the tough choices. The problem is, we do not do any 
oversight, to speak of, to cause us to know the programs that are not 
working that we could eliminate so we will not have duplicate funding 
and so we will not spend it.
  The question veterans ask me is what is our priority with our money. 
The first priority has to be defending the country. The second priority 
ought to be about taking care of veterans. What we do is we have $300 
billion a year in waste, fraud, and duplication on things that do not 
do either of those and that are extremely wasteful. Nobody with common 
sense would say they ought to continue. Yet we continue down the 
process.
  I have taken more than my time and I know my colleagues are going to 
vote. I would tell my colleague from Illinois we have had this debate a 
large number of times. We have a frank disagreement about the fiscal 
discipline that should be required of us as Senators. The fact is, we 
are going to authorize a bill and we are not going to make any tough 
choices about anything else and we are not going to take away any 
options from the Appropriations Committee when it comes to funding. To 
me, that abrogates our responsibility to be good authorizers. I will 
stand by that conviction as long as I am in the Senate. We had that 
debate on the bridge to nowhere, which my colleague supported, which 
was in an authorizing bill--and multiple times.
  With that, I yield the floor and I am prepared to listen to my 
colleague from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I know we have a standing order for a 
trigger to move to the Executive Calendar, but I ask unanimous consent 
for 5 minutes for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request, a 
short statement, and then to ask two other amendments which I have 
introduced to this bill be called and be pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I will speak briefly to the Senator from 
Oklahoma. This is not my bill. This was a bill introduced by Senator 
Hillary Clinton. It has been around for a long time. It is an effort to 
provide some help to the 6,800 families who have in their homes today a 
disabled veteran who needs a caregiver, someone who helps that veteran 
change the dressings on their wounds, provides an

[[Page 27594]]

IV change if necessary, injections if necessary, move them from bed to 
chair and back again. For many of our veterans, that is their lifeline. 
It is a wife who is giving her life to her husband who has returned 
injured from a war. It is a mother, a father, a son, a daughter, a 
loved one in the family. These people are as much a part of our 
veterans medical system as the great people who serve us at the 
veterans hospitals and veterans centers across America.
  What Senator Clinton wanted to do and what I want to help her do is 
provide some help for these caregivers. Many of them are giving their 
lives to this veteran. It is not too much to ask that we help them with 
a small stipend each month, with training so they know how to do the 
things that are necessary so they can provide the medical help these 
veterans need, with 2 weeks of respite so they can have a little time 
off by themselves and have someone else, such as a visiting nurse, step 
in for the veteran during that period of time.
  We reported the bill out of the Veterans' Committee and brought it to 
the floor. By custom in the Senate, regardless of what you just heard, 
we first pass a bill authorizing a program and, if it is passed, we 
appropriate money to the program. I am trying to follow that regular 
order.
  The Senator from Oklahoma has objected. He is the only person 
objecting. Because of his objection 6,800 veterans, those who served 
Iraq and Afghanistan, are unable to get this additional care. I know we 
cannot give it to every caregiver. I know it will be limited, and we 
will have to make that decision as part of our deliberation as to what 
we can do. But to say we should do nothing for these people is to make 
a mockery of this Veterans Day. If we truly care for these veterans, 
let us care for these families who are giving their lives to help them.
  I hope the Senator from Oklahoma will lift the hold on this bill, 
give us a chance to debate it, offer his amendments. That is what we 
are here for. But to merely stand and say: No, stop, I will not allow 
it, I don't think is what the Senate should be about. Let us debate his 
point of view, my point of view, other points of view, and try to reach 
some conclusion.


                Amendment No. 2759 to Amendment No. 2730

  I ask that the clerk call up my pending amendment No. 2759.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2759.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To enhance the ability of the Department of Veterans Affairs 
   to recruit and retain health care administrators and providers in 
                        underserved rural areas)

       On page 52, after line 21, add the following:
       Sec. 229. (a)(1)(A) Of the amount made available by this 
     title for the Veterans Health Administration under the 
     heading ``medical services'', $1,500,000 shall be available 
     to allow the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to offer 
     incentives to qualified health care providers working in 
     underserved rural areas designated by the Veterans Health 
     Administration, in addition to amounts otherwise available 
     for other pay and incentives.
       (B) Health care providers shall be eligible for incentives 
     pursuant to this paragraph only for the period of time that 
     they serve in designated areas.
       (2)(A) Of the amount made available by this title for the 
     Veterans Health Administration under the heading ``medical 
     support and compliance'', $1,500,000 shall be available to 
     allow the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to offer incentives 
     to qualified health care administrators working in 
     underserved rural areas designated by the Veterans Health 
     Administration, in addition to amounts otherwise available 
     for other pay and incentives.
       (B) Health care administrators shall be eligible for 
     incentives pursuant to this paragraph only for the period of 
     time that they serve in designated areas.
       (b) Not later than March 31, 2010, the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs shall submit to the Committees on Veterans' 
     Affairs and Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives a report detailing the number of new 
     employees receiving incentives under the pilot program 
     established pursuant to this section, describing the 
     potential for retaining those employees, and explaining the 
     structure of the program.


                Amendment No. 2760 to Amendment No. 2730

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be set aside and the clerk call up amendment No. 2760.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2760 to amendment No. 2730.

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To designate the North Chicago Veterans Affairs Medical 
Center, Illinois, as the ``Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care 
                               Center'')

       At the end of title II, add the following:
       Sec. 229. (a) Naming of Health Care Center.--Effective 
     October 1, 2010, the North Chicago Veterans Affairs Medical 
     Center located in Lake County, Illinois, shall be known and 
     designated as the ``Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health 
     Care Center''.
       (b) References.--Any reference to the medical center 
     referred to in subsection (a) in any law, regulation, map, 
     document, record, or other paper of the United States shall 
     be considered to be a reference to the Captain James A. 
     Lovell Federal Health Care Center.

  Mr. COBURN. Madam Presiding, during today's conversation, the Senator 
from Illinois stated that S. 1963 had been on the Senate calendar since 
September 25, 2009. In fact, S. 1963 was read the second time and 
placed on the calendar on October 29, 2009. A request was not made for 
unanimous consent to pass the bill on the minority side until Friday, 
November 6, 2009.
  There are currently 35,000 veterans receiving aid and attendance 
benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs, which provides 
funding for veterans who need extra help at home but do not need 
institutional care. The aid and attendance program assists all disabled 
veterans of all wars. Out of this population, around 2,000 veterans 
received their injuries after September 11 and would qualify for extra 
caregiver assistance in this bill. However, caregivers for tens of 
thousands of veterans of prior wars would not. Of course, that assumes 
that the House passes the Caregiver Assistance Act in its Chamber and 
the President signs it into law. Then it assumes that next year, in the 
discussion on the fiscal year 2011 budget, the President requests 
funding for caregiver assistance, or that both appropriations 
committees include funding, and that the President signs this into law. 
The absolute earliest that a caregiver would receive assistance is 
October 1, 2010. However, that date is not likely given the performance 
of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Right now, the average 
processing of a disability claim is 162 days at the Department. Given 
that the Department will have to make rules on this new benefit, it 
will be well into 2011 before any caregiver benefits from this program. 
However, passing this bill before Veterans Day will give benefits to 
politicians, who will have made an empty promise in 2009 that might not 
be realized until 2011, and even then, would be paid for by our 
children and grandchildren.

                          ____________________