Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I know the Senator from Hawaii has to leave, but before he goes I just wish every American could have heard from a hero not of this body, of this Nation but of the world. Senator Inouye did more than swim against the tide in order to put on the uniform of his country. He had to fight his way into the Army. He then became a Medal of Honor winner. The highest honor--the Medal of Valor-- that can be granted was awarded to Senator Inouye. He gave up more than just a few years of his life; he gave up part of his body for this country. His eloquence and his passion for proper treatment of people who want to put on the uniform of this Nation is extraordinarily powerful. I only wish every American could have heard it. I thank him for that service and for that statement. I also want to add a thank-you to the Senator from Illinois. I want to reinforce something he said by asking him a question. It had to do with that unanimous consent request to which he referred. The way this request was worded, even if--well, let me back up. We have heard for 2 days objections from Republicans that there would be nonrelevant amendments that would be offered--which, of course, is permitted under our rules. As a matter of fact, the Senator from Arizona has on a number of occasions on this bill offered nonrelevant amendments. But even if that DREAM Act amendment of yours were modified so that it only related to young men and women who wanted to go into the Army to serve their country and the educational part of it, as important as it is, if that were left out--even if the amendment were designed so that it could be referred to the Armed Services Committee because it would be defense related, even if you could design an amendment like that, under this unanimous consent agreement no amendment related to immigration would be in order during those first amendments. Is that not singling out immigration, saying, despite all of the protestations we heard here about wanting to make sure amendments were relevant--despite the history that is not required under the rule but that is the protestations we heard over the last few days, we want relevant amendments and the DREAM Act isn't relevant--under this unanimous consent request, even if the DREAM Act were modified so it might be within the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee because it would be focused on service in the Armed Forces, under this request no amendment relating to immigration would be in order; is that correct?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 21, 2010, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 374, S. 624.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee- reported substitute amendment be considered; that a Durbin amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; that the substitute amendment, as amended, be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed; that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; and that any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Reid, I ask unanimous consent that Joshua Campbell, currently serving as his military legislative fellow, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of S. 3454, the Defense authorization bill.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jocelyn Hemler, a military fellow in Senator Dodd's office, and Anna Staton, of the HELP Committee, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the 111th Congress.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 4505 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, September 21; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and that following any leader remarks, the Senate proceed to a period for the transaction of morning business until 11 a.m., with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and Republicans controlling the second half; that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 3454, the Department of Defense authorization bill, as provided under the previous order; and finally, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, at 2:15 p.m., the Senate will proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the Defense authorization bill. That will be the first vote of the day.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 630, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today in the Senate, there will be a period of morning business until 3 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 3454, the Department of Defense authorization bill. As previously announced by the majority leader, there will be no rollcall votes during today's session of the Senate. The next vote will occur at 2:15 p.m. tomorrow, Tuesday, September 21. That vote will be on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the DOD authorization bill.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I understand that S. 3793 is at the desk and due for a second reading.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I object to any further proceedings with respect to the bill.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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 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 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.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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 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.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will be very brief and save most of the debate for next week, but I do want to respond to a few of the statements my friend from Arizona made. First of all, in terms of hate crimes amendments, last year when we adopted this, it was not the first time we adopted it on the Defense authorization bill. We at least considered and adopted, in some cases, hate crimes amendments in the fiscal year 2001 authorization bill, the fiscal year 2005 authorization bill, and the fiscal year 2008 authorization bill. I did not hear my friend at that time make suggestions that somehow the committee had lost its way in terms of bipartisanship. We have not lost our way. The Senate is a body which has a right to offer amendments which are not germane or relevant to the bill in front of us. This is not the first time that someone wants to offer these amendments. It will not be the last time. For it to produce the charge that somehow or another the committee is no longer a bipartisan committee, it seems to me, is unfair, it is inappropriate, and I reject it. The Senate has considered amendments on the Defense authorization bill in the last 20 years, not just on hate crimes, over and over again--long before I became chairman, by the way--but we have debated amendments on the Defense authorization bill on indecency standards, minimum wage, managed health plans, welfare reform, and the death penalty for drug-related killings. Those are just a few. I didn't hear anybody make the kind of charge at that time that somehow or other-- because the Senate rules were being utilized to bring to the floor of the Senate an amendment which wasn't directly related to the bill in front of us--the committee itself had engaged in some kind of a partisan effort. The rules of the Senate allow the majority leader to do what he did, and majority leaders have done that in the past. The rules of the Senate allow Senators other than majority leaders to offer amendments which are not relevant to the bill, and Republicans and Democrats have done that before on bill after bill after bill and on Defense bill after Defense bill after Defense bill. I think four times hate crimes has been offered, and I believe adopted, in this body on the Defense bill, but it didn't unleash or produce the kind of charge we have just heard. The majority leader, a few moments ago, said there is not going to be an effort to limit the consideration of just three amendments, if cloture is invoked. In fact, he is hopeful, and so am I, that numbers of amendments--many amendments--can be considered before the recess. I would like to finish the bill before the recess, if we could. I would like to get time agreements. As a matter of fact, before this last recess, I asked unanimous consent that we move to this bill. I didn't put conditions on it, I just asked unanimous consent that we move to the bill, and I couldn't even get consent to do that. What is unheard of around here, as far as I know, is what is going on repeatedly now in the Senate--objections, filibusters, and threats of filibusters to move a bill to debate. This threat of a filibuster isn't a filibuster on the bill; it is a threat to filibuster our debating a bill and offering amendments on the bill. That is what is happening. Denying the Senate the opportunity to legislate on a Defense authorization bill is what is being proposed; that we not even be allowed to move to the bill until certain conditions of certain Senators are met. There is going to be a lot of time to debate this cloture motion--and I will save most of that debate for Monday--but I do think it is inaccurate to suggest that suddenly there is an effort being made to offer a nonrelevant amendment to a bill in the Senate. Many of our bills have been subjected to nonrelevant amendments because the rules allow it. As the manager of this bill, I always try to figure out a way through that thicket. It is never easy. I have managed enough bills to know it is never easy to get through that thicket the rules provide for--that nonrelevant amendments are permitted. But it is not accurate to suggest, as my friend from Arizona has, that somehow or other last year, for the first time, we adopted a nonrelevant amendment when we adopted hate crimes because we adopted that very amendment on this very bill two or three times before that. That doesn't even get to the point of all these other amendments which have been adopted, not just on the Defense authorization bill but on other bills which do not relate to the bill on the floor, and I just gave a few examples. Many of those amendments came from the Republican side. But to start suggesting that somehow or other what is happening is unique or novel, it seems to me, is not accurate and does not contribute to handling in a bipartisan manner--and in this I think I share the hope of the Senator from Arizona--the security of this Nation; that it should continue to be, as it always has been, and God willing always will be, a bipartisan matter handled in a bipartisan way by the Armed Services Committee. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the bill H.R. 6102 is an important bill. Based on authority provided in two acts, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 and the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010, the Navy and contractor team negotiated a multiyear contract for purchasing F/A-18E/F and E-18G aircraft. The Secretary of Defense approved the Navy's request to sign such a contract. The Secretary also provided the necessary certifications required by title 10, United States Code. The independent cost estimators within the Department of Defense, the office of Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation, or CAPE, agreed with the Navy's estimate that the multiyear contract would save an estimated $590 million. Unfortunately, the Navy and the contractor team were unable to conclude negotiations by the deadlines set forth in the two acts authorizing and appropriating funds for the multiyear contract. We should not let these savings slip through our fingers just because the Navy and contractors were not as prompt as the Congress envisioned when we passed the two acts last year. This bill would allow the Navy and the taxpayer to achieve those savings by authorizing the Navy to sign a multiyear contract for the F/A-18E/F and E-18G program despite having missed those deadlines. I urge that the Senate pass this bill immediately.