Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 23, 2009, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on July 23, 2009, at 10 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Worsening Foreclosure Crises: Is It Time to Reconsider Bankruptcy Reform?''

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 23, 2009, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``D.C. Public Schools: Taking Stock of Education Reform.''

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Water and Power, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing on Thursday, on July 23, 2009, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. On the alternate engine.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. That is fine.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank my friend from Arizona, Senator Kyl, for his very strong statement. I rise to speak in support of this bipartisan amendment which I have cosponsored along with Senator Kyl, Senator Bayh, and Senator McCain. As you know, President Obama has made a historic offer to Iran's leaders, inviting them to engage in direct diplomacy to resolve the outstanding differences between our two countries. As the President has repeatedly said, the door is open for the Iranians to come in out of the cold, if they choose to do so. It is by suspending their illicit nuclear activities and ending their support for terrorism that the Iranians have a clear path to ending their international isolation and taking their rightful place in the community of nations. Unfortunately, as Senator Kyl said, it has now been more than 3\1/2\ months since the formal offer of engagement was made by President Obama, and there has been no reply from the Iranians. Meanwhile, Iran's illicit nuclear activities have continued to speed forward, in violation of multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions. Thousands of additional centrifuges are being installed, and more and more fissile material is being stockpiled. At the same time, Iran's support for terrorist proxies in Iraq, in Lebanon, and in the Palestinian Authority areas has continued. And, of course, over the past month we and the rest of the world have watched with horror as the Iranian regime has engaged in a brutal crackdown against its own people, who have sought no more than basic human rights. President Obama, together with our international allies, has been very clear that we will not wait indefinitely for the Iranians to respond to our offer of talks, nor will we enter into negotiations--if that is the willingness of the Iranians--that go on without end. Two weeks ago, at the annual G8 summit in Italy, the President joined with other world leaders to make clear to the Iranians that they have until the G20 summit in Pittsburgh, at the end of September, to return to the negotiating table or face the consequences. The amendment Senators Kyl, Bayh, McCain, and I have put forward would place the full weight of the U.S. Senate behind the time frame that the President and the G8 have articulated. Our amendment expresses our strong hope that Iran seizes this historic opportunity for direct dialogue. We also make clear that if the Iranians have failed to engage with us diplomatically by the time of that G20 summit 2 months from now, it is our preference that multilateral sanctions be imposed through the United Nations Security Council. However, the Iranian Government--the regime that controls the people of Iran--must also understand that the United States is itself prepared to put in place what Secretary of State Clinton a while ago referred to as crippling sanctions in the event that they in Tehran continue to flaunt the will of the international community. Specifically, our amendment asks the President to impose sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran and other banks involved in proliferation and terrorist activities, in the event that the Iranians haven't entered into negotiations that are serious by the time of the Pittsburgh summit or if they haven't suspended enrichment and reprocessing activities within 60 days of that summit. The Central Bank of Iran is the financial lifeline of that regime. It is an entity that our own Treasury Department says has engaged in deceptive financial practices and facilitated the efforts of other Iranian banks that are involved in bankrolling proliferation and terrorist activities to avoid international sanctions, and that have themselves been sanctioned by the U.N. and our Treasury Department as a result. I will say this. The idea of imposing sanctions on the Iranian Central Bank is not new. It has already been endorsed by a bipartisan majority in this Chamber. Last year, the Senate Banking Committee, under Chairman Dodd, adopted bipartisan legislation by a vote of 19 to 2 to urge the President to immediately impose sanctions against the Central Bank. Also last year, the House of Representatives passed such legislation that urged immediate sanctions. More recently, the legislation that Senators Bayh, Kyl, and I introduced this spring--the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, S. 908--in addition to the other steps it takes--also expresses the sense of the Senate that the President should impose sanctions against the Central Bank of Iran. I am very grateful to report that S. 908, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, now has 67 Members of the Senate, a strong bipartisan group of 67, or two-thirds, as cosponsors of that legislation. These cosponsors range all across the ideological spectrum of Members of the Senate, and clearly make the point to Iran and to the rest of the world that whatever other differences we have, we stand together here as a strong majority and beyond the Senate in our concern about the nuclear proliferation and terror-sponsoring activities of the Iranian Government. You might say, if you are one of the 67 cosponsors of S. 908--which does more than this amendment does but includes it--you have already spoken in favor of this amendment. This amendment, I want to point out and make clear, in no way ties the President's hand in his diplomacy with Iran. That is not our intent. The amendment is about empowering the President, giving him additional leverage in his diplomacy, by endorsing the same timetable that came out of the G8 summit a short while ago. The effect is this, and I will repeat: The Iranians must appreciate that there will be consequences if they fail to respond to the international community's diplomatic initiatives; in other words, if they continue to speed their nuclear program forward. I think this amendment will send an unmistakable message to the fanatical regime in Tehran, in support of the G8, in support of President Obama: Either you can engage with the United States and the world community and take steps to suspend your nuclear activities or you can continue on your current course, in which case you will face the crippling sanctions this sense-of-the-Senate resolution calls for. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend from Arizona. I am encouraged by that. And in talking to the other cosponsors, we would be happy to have a voice vote. It would send a message.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that amendment No. 1528 be called up.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased and proud to introduce this amendment with a bipartisan group of cosponsors. To state it briefly, it extends the authorized end strength of the U.S. Army by 30,000 over the next 3 years, effective with the commencement of fiscal year 2010. It doesn't mandate this increase, but it expands the authority of the Secretary of Defense, obviously, with the support and authorization of the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief, to extend the end strength of the U.S. Army. End strength means how many soldiers can the U.S. Army have. Of course, it does this to reduce the tremendous stress on the U.S. Army, which is carrying the burden of combat in two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan today, and over the next year or 18 months will be in this unique position. Progress has been made, thank God, in Iraq, and the Iraq Security Forces are progressively taking over responsibility for keeping the security in their country. The drawdown of American soldiers is happening in a methodical and responsible way, and I again express my appreciation to President Obama that it is happening in that way. At the same time, we are increasing our troop presence in Afghanistan. Bottom line: The demand for members of the U.S. Army on the battlefield over the next year, 18 months, at the outside 2 years, is going up. If the supply remains constant, that means the stress on every soldier in the U.S. Army and his or her family will not be reduced. As a matter of fact, it will go up. The term for this--which I will get to in a minute--in the Army is ``dwell time.'' This is an amendment that began with members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and a comparable amendment in the House Armed Services Committee, recognizing, as we all do, the tremendous stress that our Army is under, the extraordinary job they are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is really the next great generation of the American military. But we see in it some tough statistics: the increase in mental health problems, the increase in divorces of members of the service, and, worse, of course, the increase in suicides. There are many things we have supported in this Senate and the Congress--and the administration has--to respond to each one of those problems. But in a way, the most direct thing we can do is to increase the size of the U.S. Army so there is less pressure on every soldier in the Army, in this sense. Every time we add another soldier to the U.S. Army--and we are talking about authorization to add 30,000 more--it means that much more time every other member of the U.S. Army can spend back at base retraining, preparing and, most important of all, spending time with their families. As I know the Presiding Officer knows--and I know the President of the United States knows it too--the good news is that the Secretary of Defense, Bob Gates, who has done and is doing an extraordinary job for our country with, of course, the support and authorization of President Obama, yesterday announced that he would be temporarily increasing the Active-Duty end strength of the U.S. Army by 22,000 soldiers over the course of the next 3 years. I cannot sufficiently express my words of appreciation for Secretary Gates's decision. He acted by employing the emergency authority he has in an authorization of the use of force and a built-in statutory waiver he has up to 3 percent of existing end strength to expand the size of the Army. This amendment, which had been planned, and was in the committee before this great action by Secretary Gates yesterday, is now before us, and I am honored to offer this amendment with a bipartisan group of cosponsors who are listed on this amendment as a way to do two things: The first is that it literally increases from 547,000 to 577,000-plus the authorized end strength of the U.S. Army, and to leave that authority there in case there is a need that Secretary Gates and the President see in the coming 3 years to raise the number.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Two reasons. The first is that it is a bit beyond what Secretary Gates did. He authorized using the extraordinary powers he possesses as Secretary in this time of conflict up to 22,000 for the next 3 years. The amendment authorizes--doesn't mandate, doesn't appropriate--30,000 for the next 3 years. So it gives some latitude, depending on how conditions go in Iraq and Afghanistan, to go a bit further--8,000 more, if necessary, over the next 3 years. Second, I say to my friend from Arizona, when this amendment started, we didn't know Secretary Gates was going to do this. I am grateful he did, but this amendment now--frankly, as Secretary Gates himself said to me yesterday, and I appreciate it and I don't think he would mind if I repeated it on the Senate floor--gives the Senate and Congress the opportunity to essentially vindicate and support the step that the Secretary has made and, as he put it, send a message from the Senate to the members of the U.S. Army that help is on the way.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. My friend from Arizona is absolutely right. There is no doubt, based on the demand, certainly temporarily, over the next 18 months, perhaps 2 years, as we are drawing down in Iraq, but not as rapidly as we are adding forces in Afghanistan, that there is at least a temporary need for more than the authorized 547,000 members of the U.S. Army.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Absolutely. As a matter of fact, one of the reasons Secretary Gates gave yesterday I will read: The decision to eliminate the routine use of ``stop loss'' authority in the Army requires a larger personnel flow for each deploying unit to compensate for those whose contract expires during the period of deployment. So, yes, this makes it possible to end the use of stop loss, which is essentially, in layman's terms, a way to require people to stay actively deployed longer than they originally were going to be deployed.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend from Arizona. We have illuminated most of the reasons in our exchange why this amendment is important. I will simply add a few more things Secretary Gates said yesterday, which is: The army has reached a point of diminishing returns in their multiyear program to reduce the size of its training and support ``tail.'' That is the training and support which supports the Active-Duty Army. The cumulative effect of these factors is that the Army faces a period where its ability to continue to deploy combat units at acceptable fill rates is at serious risk. Here is the point I just made in response to Senator McCain's question. Based on current deployment estimates, this is a temporary challenge-- A temporary point of stress. We hope and pray that is true. It certainly looks like it is-- which will peak in the coming year and abate over the course of the next 3 years. Mr. President, in addition to the Secretary of Defense, we heard from the Army's Chief of Staff, GEN George Casey, and Secretary of the Army Pete Geren, who have been advocates within the Pentagon for this increase in end strength, and I thank them for that. Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, told our Armed Services Committee earlier this year that the light at the end of the tunnel, as he put it, is still more than 2 years away, and that is only if everything goes according to plan, which in combat, obviously, often does not. Again, I say this is an authorization; it is not a mandate. I will add that Secretary Gates announced yesterday that he will find a way to fund the additional troops in this year and fiscal year 2010--the one that begins October 1--by reprogramming other funds appropriated to the Pentagon for fiscal year 2011, which is the budget that will be presented to us next year, if it is probable that the Department of Defense will require funding as part of its normal operations, and more likely as part of the OCO fund--the overseas contingency operation fund--which supports our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. I cannot say enough, I know all of us in the Senate believe we cannot say enough, in gratitude to the members of the U.S. Army who are leading the battle for us against the Islamic extremists and terrorists who attacked us on 9/11/01. We owe them a debt we can never fully repay. One thing we can do, that Secretary Gates did yesterday and the Senate can do in this amendment, is to send a message to our troops in the field that help is on the way in the most consequential way, which is additional members of the Army. I ask that when the vote be taken, it be taken by the yeas and nays.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Again I say to my colleagues I am doing that, although I expect there will be very strong support for this, because I believe it is the most visible way for this Senate to send the message to the U.S. Army of appreciation and gratitude, to them and their families, that help is on the way. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, briefly I thank Senator Levin, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, not just for his strong statement of support now but for the support he has given during our committee's deliberations to the goal of achieving an increase in Army end strength. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, it is with the heaviest of hearts that I rise to remember a dear friend and committed public servant, Lorraine Perona Rooney, who passed away early this morning. I am deeply saddened by Lorraine's death and will keep her friends and family in my thoughts and prayers during this difficult time. Lorraine, who served the U.S. Senate for over 27 years, was one of a small group of staff members I assembled to assist me when I first took office as a U.S. Senator from the State of Connecticut on January 3, 1989. I was tremendously fortunate to have a person of Lorraine's extensive knowledge and years of Senate staff experience to set up my office. She did a wonderful job and kept my office running smoothly for more than 15 years--as office manager and financial director--and did so with style and grace. Many staff members and interns passed through my office during her tenure, and all benefitted from Lorraine's caring guidance, common sense, and expertise. Those who worked with her recall her willingness to go the extra mile to help her coworkers. One member of my staff remembers that Lorraine worked to secure her a parking space closer to the office so that she wouldn't have very far to walk to get to her car after dark. After graduating from American University with a degree in international relations, Lorraine subsequently worked at Dartmouth College in charge of foreign study programs. Through a contact there, she learned of an opening in the office of Senator John Durkin, Democrat from New Hampshire, and thus began her Senate career in March 1977. Following her work in Senator Durkin's office, Lorraine built her career in the Senate setting up offices for newly elected Members, including Senator Carl Levin, Democrat from Michigan, in 1979, Senator Frank Lautenberg, Democrat from New Jersey, in 1982, and, of course, myself in 1989. Throughout her time with the Senate, Lorraine demonstrated an expertise in creating attractive, functional and comfortable work spaces, not an easy task given our limited space and resources then. During Lorraine's last few years at my office, she was faced with many serious health problems. Despite her suffering and hardship, she continued to do her utmost in service to me and the citizens of Connecticut. The courage she demonstrated as she faced these personal challenges served as an inspiration for me and my staff. Those of us who were lucky enough to know Lorraine could not help but be touched by her kindness and warmth. She formed many lasting friendships in the Senate community; she often spoke of the Senate as ``home.'' She was widely respected and beloved among her Senate colleagues for her character, judgment, and professionalism. It is no wonder that after her retirement she continued to stay in touch with so many with whom she had worked. Lorraine was a dedicated public servant who enriched this institution. I extend my deepest condolences to Lorraine's husband Bernie Rooney and daughter Shannon for their irreplaceable loss. Mr. President, we honor Lorraine Perona's memory and we cherish her decency and her friendship.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on another amendment I have filed that is at the desk, but I know there is a pending amendment, so I suppose I should ask to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, this amendment I rise to speak about is numbered 1528. I am hopeful before too long it will be the pending business. I know it has now, and I believe it will, enjoy broad bipartisan support. This amendment would increase the authorization for the Active-Duty end strength of the U.S. Army over the next 3 years by 30,000 additional soldiers. I wish to say right at the outset it is an authorization; it is not an appropriation. It says within its terms that it is contingent on a decision by the Secretary of Defense that he chooses to fill these positions, and if he does, then he has two major options. One is to reprogram from other funds under his control to support these additional troops, and the second, of course, is to return to Congress for a supplemental appropriation. In my opinion, for all we have said and done in expression of our concern about the stress the members of the U.S. Army are feeling and their families are feeling, based on the fact that they are carrying the overwhelming burden of the wars in which we are involved in Iraq and Afghanistan--we have done a lot to improve living conditions, to offer more support for physical and mental health services, to provide better housing for families, but this is about how much time the soldiers can be back at their home bases and back with their families. I will get to this in detail as we go on. Last month, the House and Senate Armed Services Committees voted to give the Secretary of Defense the authority to increase the Army's end strength by an additional 30,000 soldiers for fiscal years 2011 and 2012 but not 2010, for reasons that I will describe as somewhat arcane. This new authorization will provide the Secretary of Defense with the ability to increase the size of the Army to the extent he thinks it is necessary for the national defense or for other purposes such as reducing the stress to which I have referred on our troops today. I was privileged to introduce the amendment along with Senator Thune, my ranking member on the Airland Subcommittee, during the Senate Armed Services Committee, as well as Senator Graham, to provide this authorization, and I am glad to be joined in introducing this amendment No. 1528 with my bipartisan group, including the two formerly mentioned Senators, and others. This amendment would extend this authorization where it logically must begin to fiscal year 2010 beginning on October 1 of this year, 2009. We introduced this amendment because it will provide our soldiers with the reinforcements they will need to execute the missions we as a nation have sent them on. Indeed, our soldiers will be under even more stress in the coming months because of this fact. As we begin the responsible strategy for drawdown in Iraq based on the extraordinary success of our troops and the Iraqis in turning around the war in Iraq, we are also deploying additional soldiers under the direction of our Commander in Chief, President Obama, to Afghanistan at an even faster pace than they are returning home. GEN George Casey, the Army's Chief of Staff, warned us in the Armed Services Committee earlier this year that the effect of these two facts--a slow and methodical drawdown in Iraq of our Armed Forces, Army, and an increase in deployment to Afghanistan--means that the total number of soldiers deployed to combat will be increasing through the rest of this calendar year and into the next. As General Casey said to us, this matter of dwell time, which I will speak about in more detail in a moment, is a matter of supply and demand: How many soldiers do we have, and what is the demand for them in the battle zones, the war zones. GEN James Cartwright, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently confirmed the critical challenges the U.S. Army will face in the near term and the importance of increasing Army Active Duty end strength. Speaking before the Senate Armed Services Committee just last week, General Cartwright said: There is that period of 2010 and 2011 in particular where that stress is going to be there. During 2010 because of execution, and in 2011 because [units will be] coming back, refilling and trying to retrofit. You're going to have stress on the Army in a significant way. And I add, stress on the Army means stress on the families of those who serve us in the Army. General Cartwright continued by stating that the Joint Chiefs of Staff are working with the Army to find a range for growth that would reduce this strain on the service. ``We have looked at this, we have worked in a range''--and I add here of increasing Army Active Duty-- ``from about 15,000 to 25,000 . . . 30,000 would give us the range in which to work to allow us to do that.'' That is exactly what this amendment would do, give the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs, and the Secretary of the Army the latitude to increase the Army temporarily by as much as 30,000. Why? To increase the dwell time. That is the time our troops can spend at home and, thereby, reduce the stress in a most significant way imaginable. I deeply appreciate that General Cartwright would speak so clearly about the Army's requirements of additional soldiers in the coming months and how hard he and Secretary Gates are working to support our troops. I believe it is our duty to make sure they have all the authority required to do so. Let me speak more about what dwell time is. Dwell time is time soldiers have between Active Duty deployments, time they spend recovering and preparing for their next deployment and, most significant to our soldiers, I would guess, precious time they can spend at home with their families. This dwell time ratio for many of our soldiers today is little more than 1 to 1, which means they have but 1 year at home for every year they spend in the theater. Everyone agrees--everyone agrees--that this dwell time is absolutely unacceptable. It may also be unsustainable. When General Casey testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this year, he said it is his goal to get to a point where we have at least 2 years back home for every year our soldiers spend deployed. In fact, he said his ultimate goal at which he believes the Army would be most effective would be to have 3 years at home for every year in the field. General Casey hopes that a responsible drawdown from Iraq will allow him to achieve that goal. I share the general's hopes. But, frankly, I do not believe we can bet the well-being of our Army on them without providing authority to the Army and the Secretary of Defense to expand the troops to reach those dwell-time goals of at least 2 to 1 about which General Casey talked. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, told our committee this year that the ``light at the end of the tunnel'' is still more than 2 years away for the Army, and that is only if everything goes according to plan in Iraq. I believe that 2 years is too long to wait, especially when we can take steps now to turn on the light, if you will, to provide our soldiers with the reinforcements and relief they need. I think it is important for my colleagues to know this amendment has the strong support of many of our soldiers and those organizations that fight for them. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record two letters, one from GEN Gordon Sullivan, president of the Association of the U.S. Army, and, second, from ADM Norbert Ryan, writing on behalf of the Military Officers Association of America.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, General Sullivan is a retired former Chief of the U.S. Army, a great American soldier. I quote, briefly, from his letter to me about this amendment supporting the amendment: As you know, the troop increases in Afghanistan will precede decreases in Iraq, causing the number of deployed soldiers to increase into next year. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified to Congress that it will be difficult to increase dwell time at home over the next 18 to 24 months within our current end strength. Factor in the more than 30,000 soldiers who are on the rolls but not deployable, and it's obvious what a strain that would be to our current troop levels. . . . I hope your floor amendment [and the debate of it] will help your fellow Senators see [that]. The Army is in dire need of sufficient troops to increase dwell time for active duty soldiers, increase support for operational missions, and help the Army achieve reorganization objectives. He concludes: We say that we want to ease the stress and strain on soldiers and their families, and now is the time to do the one thing that will provide immediate relief. And that is to increase the authorization of the U.S. Army end strength as the number of troops it can have actively deployed by 30,000 and to fill that 30,000 increase. Second, Admiral Ryan, another distinguished servant of the United States, a patriot, says: On behalf . . . of the Military Officers Association of America . . . Today's combat forces and their families are paying a terrible price. This is a very personal letter. I will start again. Today's combat forces and their families are paying a terrible price in family separation and stress for our past failure to grow our armed forces at a pace sufficient to accommodate the extraordinary wartime deployment requirements of the past seven years. For years, we have relied on the patriotism, dedication, and resilience of our men and women in uniform to bear 100 percent of the Nation's wartime sacrifice. But with thousands experiencing their third or fourth combat tour since 2001 and the prospect of a decade of persistent conflict ahead, reasonable leaders must take responsible action to ease the extreme strain our military members and families have been required to absorb for so long. And then he says: [This] amendment recognizes that the only way to do so in the face of increasing deployment requirements in the near term is to authorize a substantial increase in Army end strength for FY2010. That is exactly what this amendment would do. The authority provided in the amendment is temporary in nature and will expire in 2012. We hope and pray that by that time, we will be able to return the Army end strength to 547,000. If Congress increases the end strength of the Army now, as this amendment would authorize, we would be able to reevaluate that judgment as conditions on the ground and in the world justify. I say, in conclusion, again, there is no money attached to this amendment. This gives authority to the Defense Department to raise the Army end strength, the number of troops on Active Duty by 30,000. If Secretary Gates decides, in his judgment, it is necessary to do in our national interest, then he will either have to come back and ask us for the money to do so or he will reprogram funds that are now under his control. I ask my colleagues for their support when this amendment comes up, and I hope it comes up soon. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that MAJ Brian Forrest of the United States Army, whom I am privileged to have working in my office for a year, be granted floor privileges for the time the Senate is debating S. 1390, the National Defense Authorization Act for 2010.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of S. 1390. But before I do, let me thank Senator Leahy for his leadership in introducing this anti-hate crime amendment. I am honored to be one of its cosponsors. I hope the Senate works its will and, in the interests of justice, adopts the amendment in due course. As I said, I rise to support S. 1390, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2010, the matter before the Senate today and this week. I wish to begin by commending Chairman Levin, the chairman of our Senate Armed Services Committee, and Senator McCain, the ranking Republican member, for their leadership and for the bipartisan example they have set in drafting and reporting out this bill. This bill will keep our Nation safe and provide our troops with the support they deserve, and that is exactly what it ought to do. The bill will establish new programs to support the fiscal and mental well-being of our troops and their families. It will provide our fighting men and women a 3.4-percent increase in compensation. The fact is, nothing is more important than taking care of this extraordinary, gifted, brave generation of men and women who have volunteered to defend our country at a time of war. I am also very pleased this bill will authorize the Secretary of Defense to grow the size of the Army in 2011 and 2012, a period when our soldiers will still be under stress, real stress, as the Army shifts its focus from operations in Iraq and Afghanistan but the overall level of deployment will probably rise. There is so much we can do to reduce the stress on those who serve us in the military and on their families. One critical thing we can do is to simply increase the number of men and women in uniform, particularly in the Army, because the more supply there is of troops, no matter what the demand, the amount of time every soldier can look forward to being back at base, back with families, not deployed in a battle zone, will decrease the stress they are under. The additional troops--``end strength,'' as it is called in the vocabulary of this legislation--that are provided for in 2011 and 2012 will ease the strain on our soldiers who have already been asked to do so much on our behalf. I intend to work with my colleagues in the Senate this week to amend this bill to extend the application of the method to increase end strength from 547,000 to 577,000 so it can begin in the next fiscal year, the year 2010, because that is probably when it will be most needed, as we are reducing our presence in Iraq but in a slightly more accelerated way increasing our presence in Afghanistan. Let me focus, if I may, on the parts of this legislation that have come out of our Airland Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, a subcommittee which I have the honor of chairing. I wish to start by thanking Senator John Thune for his service as ranking member of the subcommittee. It is a pleasure to work with Senator Thune on behalf of our Army and Air Force and all involved in air and land programs. We work closely together in a completely bipartisan manner to carry out our responsibilities concerning the matters in the jurisdiction of our subcommittee. The Airland Subcommittee has broad responsibility for policy oversight over substantial parts of the Army and Air Force budgets but also, to a lesser extent, to a real extent, the Navy and the Marine Corps. So the subcommittee's portion of this year's National Defense Authorization Act is a large one. Our goal was direct: to promote and improve the current and, as best we can, the future readiness of our ground and air forces, while at the same time ensuring the most efficient and effective use of taxpayer dollars. This year, the portion of the budget request falling under the Airland Subcommittee's jurisdiction included a total of $71.1 billion. That is made up of $55.4 billion in procurement and $15.7 billion in all-important research and development. As it stands right now, the full committee's recommendation is a net addition to the President's budget request of $2.9 billion to support activities under the Airland Subcommittee's jurisdiction. In the past, the Armed Services Committee and the Senate have supported stability and funding levels as requested for Army readiness and modernization programs. This has been particularly true for the Army's Future Combat Systems, which has been the major modernization program of the Army. However, the Army was forced to make some tough decisions in these tough budget times and decided in April to restructure the Future Combat Systems Program, including termination of the manned ground vehicle portion of that program. The Department has reoriented the Army modernization plans that have been in place for the last 6 years. That is the necessity the Army felt both for budgetary reasons and I believe for reasons of effectiveness. So the bill before us today supports the Department's decision, the Army's decision, with respect to the restructuring of the Future Combat Systems Program and recommends full funding for the ``spin out'' portions, the network portions of that program that will be carried forward. This is a remarkable application of modern technology to the battlefield. The history of warfare shows, generally speaking, that any developments, any technological advances that have occurred over history, from the first fires that were made, to the wheel, and on to the railroad, et cetera, have found their way--obviously the ability to fly--into military use. And so it is with the remarkable capability to communicate with one another, to use telecommunications, and the computer particularly, that has found its way into applications in combat which greatly expand the capabilities of our solders, each and every one of them, to see the battlefield beyond what they can see with their eyes and to conduct the most effective warfare on our behalf. The bill also requires and recommends full funding for a new ground combat vehicle research and development program, as the Secretary of Defense agreed the Army needs. In addition, this bill will direct the Department to establish a development program for a next-generation, self-propelled howitzer to take advantage of technologies already matured as part of the Future Combat System non-line of sight cannon program. In other words, what we are trying to do, in the aftermath of Secretary Gates' decision to terminate the series of programs under the Future Combat Systems Program, is to harvest technological advances that were made as part of those now terminated programs. To support our forces in Afghanistan, this bill also recommends a large sum for an important purpose, $6.7 billion for the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle fund, which is an increase of $1.2 billion above the President's budget request for what is normally known as the MRAP--in this case, the MRAP all-terrain vehicles, a later version of the MRAPs, a more agile version of the MRAPs that have done so much to protect the lives and well-being of our soldiers in Iraq from the impact of IEDs and of bombs our enemies have set off. These MRAP ATVs will now be of tremendous assistance to the growing number of troops we are sending to Afghanistan. This is a version of the MRAP made particularly for our troops now fighting for us in Afghanistan. In addition, in response to the Army Chief of Staff's unfunded priorities list, the bill also recommends adding $179 million to procure additional Force XXI Battlefield Command Brigade and Below systems to enhance the operational effectiveness of small units fighting on our behalf in Afghanistan and Iraq. When it comes to air power, the bill also recommends an additional $560 million to buy FA-18E/F aircraft in fiscal year 2010 as originally planned in the program of record, rather than the nine aircraft requested by the President's budget. Our subcommittee believes these added aircraft are a sensible investment to make against a looming dangerous shortfall in our Nation's tactical aviation aircraft inventory. In other words, the new generation of tactical airfighters coming on will not be there early enough to help the Navy overcome the running out of the lifespan of the series of tactical aircraft they have now. That will put them way below what the Navy believes it needs in the years ahead. The subcommittee has also recommended an additional $1.75 billion to buy seven F-22A Raptor aircraft rather than terminating the production program as requested by the Department. This was a judgment made by the full committee when it received our subcommittee report. Although this was a hard decision, the continued production of the Raptor will guarantee that we have balanced combat air forces in the future and support the transition between F-22A and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter programs. The bill also includes an additional $20.4 million to support 12 additional Blackhawk A-to-L model conversions to accelerate modernization of the Army's Active and Reserve component fleets. In the area of efficiencies, the bill recommends making adjustments or reductions as follows: a decrease of $209.5 million for the C-130 Avionics Modernization Program because of the delays in beginning the production program and a decrease of $90 million for the CSAR-X, the search and rescue helicopter program, because of the availability of prior year funds to cover fiscal year 2010 requirements. There is one provision of this bill about which I myself have grave reservations. The full committee overturned the recommendation of our subcommittee that concerns the development of the alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter, a second engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. President Obama, as President Bush before him, concluded, after the competition was held, the one engine met the needs of our military for the Joint Strike Fighter Program without the additional cost required for a second engine development program. The full committee overturned the judgment of the subcommittee and provided $439 million in the coming fiscal year for the second engine. The President, incidentally, has singled out that engine as an example of one that he says ``do[es] nothing to keep us safe'' and has said if the second engine is included in the bill, he will consider vetoing the bill. I intend to work with my colleagues this week to hopefully remove the funding for the alternative engine and restore it to where it was intended, which was to fund the development of the Joint Strike Fighter and to pay for 10 UH-1Y helicopters, familiarly known as Hueys, that were cut to pay for this program that otherwise would go to the Marines. Both the Commandant of the Marine Corps and the Vice Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff have described this as critical for our Marines fighting in Afghanistan. They need those 10 Hueys. Despite that one reservation, the legislation and funding in the bill would end the Airland Subcommittee's jurisdiction. Indeed, the bill in general strongly supports our Armed Forces in a time of war and supports the flexibility the Department, under Secretary Gates, has requested as it charts a path to military modernization. I praised Chairman Levin in his absence. I don't want to miss the opportunity to praise him in his presence, along with Senator McCain, for the leadership both have brought to this committee and the extraordinary example of bipartisanship in the interest of national security that they together have demonstrated through their work on the committee. There will be a lot of amendments and some will be controversial. But when it is all over and we come to adoption of the legislation, I hope, with confidence, that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will give the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2010 the resounding bipartisan support it and our military deserve. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to say a few words about the fiscal year 2010 appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security. First, let me thank my colleagues who have worked to develop this legislation, especially Senators Byrd and Voinovich, the chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Appropriations subcommittee on Homeland Security. I also thank Senators Inouye and Cochran, the chairman and ranking member of the full Appropriations Committee. Finally, thanks also to Senator Murray for her skilled management of the appropriations bill in Senator Byrd's absence. The bill before us is a fair, carefully balanced, and well-considered spending plan for the Department of Homeland Security. The resources provided in the bill are sufficient to carry out the Department's core missions of protecting the homeland against the threat of terrorism, securing our borders, enforcing our immigration laws, and preparing for and responding to terrorist attacks and natural disasters. While there are many programs and activities at DHS deserving of funding above the level provided in this bill, we are in a time of serious economic challenge, and obviously tough choices had to be and were--made in putting this legislation together. This bill reflects the priorities of a department that has made great strides in the last 6 years but still faces many hurdles before we can say it has fulfilled the mission Congress laid out for it in 2002. Senator Collins and I have worked together since DHS was created-- alternating as chairman and ranking member of the primary authorizing committee for the Department--to strengthen the Department's ability to carry out its many national security missions, to strengthen its management, facilitate its integration, and to hold its leadership accountable to an American public that has a right to be safe and secure within the borders of our own nation. In May, I wrote to Chairman Byrd and Ranking Member Voinovich setting forth what I believed to be the most significant appropriations priorities for the Department, and I am grateful that a number of my recommendations have been incorporated into this bill. Let me briefly discuss a few sections of this bill that I believe are particularly important to our homeland security. First, I am pleased the Appropriations Committee recognized that the Department's management and operations accounts need adequate funding if DHS is to succeed as it must. Secretary Napolitano has emphasized the need to create ``One DHS'' where the Department's many components are working closely together. To accomplish this, the offices for policy, human capital, acquisition, and information technology need additional resources, and all received significant increases in their budgets. The additional investments in acquisition oversight is particularly gratifying, as it will improve the Department's ability to oversee the $12 billion it spends each year on contracts with the private sector to better ensure our tax dollars are not wasted on bloated or ineffective programs. In previous years, these management and operations accounts have often been used as offsets for amendments. I would urge my colleagues to refrain from offering amendments that would take away funds from management and operations; these funds are critical to the success of the entire Department. Second, this bill, together with the funding provided in the fiscal year 2009 supplemental, significantly increases resources for combating violence on our southern border and includes the bulk of the $500 million in border security funding Senator Collins and I successfully added to the Senate budget resolution in March. The FBI has said that the Mexican drug cartels are the No. 1 organized crime threat in America today, replacing the Mafia, and now DHS will be able to send over 500 additional law enforcement officers to ports of entry. Almost half will help conduct southbound inspections to interdict the illegal flow of cash and guns into Mexico that is fueling the cartel-driven violence. The funding will also add hundreds of ICE investigators to work on drug, currency, and firearms cases in the border region and will expand the Border Enforcement Security Task Force fusion centers that ICE has established along the southwest border. This funding was badly needed to help Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies take down these sophisticated and dangerous drug-and-human smuggling networks. The Mexican drug cartels represent a clear and present threat to homeland security, and I remain fully committed to working with the administration to support our Federal law enforcement agencies in this crucial fight. Third, this bill continues funding for the Homeland Security Grant Programs that our first responders need to prepare for acts of terrorism and natural disasters at the State, local, and tribal levels. Funding for the State Homeland Security Grant Program, which provides basic preparedness funds to all States and is the largest of DHS's grant programs, remains steady from last year at $950 million, including $60 million for grants focused on border security, essentially the full level authorized by Congress in the implementing recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007. Funds for Urban Area Security Initiative, UASI, grants, which provide resources to the Nation's highest risk metropolitan areas, are increased by nearly $50 million over last year. I am also pleased that funding for SAFER grants , which assist local fire departments with the cost of hiring new firefighters, was doubled to $420 million for fiscal year 2010. In this era of budget constraints, this funding will help ensure that communities are able to continue to staff their local fire houses. The Appropriations Committee has also wisely restored a significant portion of the funding cut from the President's budget for assistance to firefighter grants. These grants fund essential equipment, vehicles and training for firefighters. However, the $380 million for these grants represents a cut of nearly one-third below the fiscal year 2009 appropriation. Fourth, this bill wisely supports the administration's request for a significant increase in funding for cybersecurity at DHS, which has been identified as one of our top national security priorities. The Department needs resources to protect Federal civilian networks from cyber-related threats and to work with the private sector to protect their networks and infrastructures. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is currently working to develop legislation that strengthens the government's authorities with respect to cybersecurity, so this funding decision is particularly important. This bill makes other essential homeland security investments in port security, transit security, science and technology, and biosecurity, all of which are critical to the overall security of the Nation. I am concerned that the bill cuts funding for FEMA's main operating account, making it difficult for FEMA to continue implementing the critical improvements necessary for it to become, nearly 4 years after Hurricane Katrina, the ``new FEMA.'' Also, insufficient funding has been appropriated for the Secret Service to make necessary improvements to its information technology systems, and, in particular, to complete essential work to allow secure communications between the Secret Service's White House detail and its field office. Despite these particular concerns, however, I believe that overall this is a strong and essential piece of legislation. I thank the leadership and the members of the Appropriations Committee for their work on this bill and strongly urge my colleagues to support its passage.