The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009” mentioning the U.S. Dept of State was published in the Senate section on pages S8931-S8933 on Sept. 17, 2008.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 3001, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 3001) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.
Pending:
Reid amendment No. 5290, to change the enactment date.
Reid amendment No. 5291 (to amendment No. 5290), of a perfecting nature.
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I rise today in support of the fiscal year 2009 Defense Authorization Act, a critical piece of legislation that honors the men and women who are so honorably serving in the Armed Forces and that provides our military with the tools it needs to keep our country safe.
I am most proud of the investments this legislation makes in our military's most important resource--the men and women who serve in uniform. Recognizing the strain multiple deployments and difficult economic times has placed on our troops and their families, this bill increases military pay by 3.9 percent.
This bill goes further to make sure that we keep our military strong at a time when two wars have overstretched and overstressed our troops. The bill allows us to grow our military. By increasing the end strength of the Army, Marine Corps, Air National Guard, and Army Reserve, we can reduce the stress on our troops caused by multiple and extended deployments. And we can be sure we have the troops we need to meet future challenges in an ever more uncertain world.
This bill continues bonuses and incentives that reward our military men and women and encourage them to continue their service. It provides new incentives to military psychologists and nursing students to address the ongoing shortages in these critical areas. The legislation prohibits the Administration's proposed increase in TRICARE fees for retirees and reservists.
While medical treatment for wounded soldiers has improved dramatically over the course of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, too often that care is just too hard to access. I believe that managing paperwork and scheduling appointments in a timely and efficient manner is just as much a part of quality medical care as the treatment provided by medics and surgeons.
Last year this Congress acted aggressively to address the red tape that kept our wounded warriors from their doctors and counselors. The Wounded Warrior Act allowed the Department of Defense to address the substandard living conditions, poor outpatient care and bureaucratic roadblocks faced by injured soldiers at Walter Reed and around the country.
One month ago, I visited a soldier transition unit at Ft. Meade, MD. I saw firsthand how hard our wounded warriors are working to recover from their often devastating injuries. I saw a Department of Defense that has recommitted itself to making sure our wounded warriors and their families get the care and support they need and deserve. This bill requires that the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs continue the Senior Oversight Committee that oversees implementation of wounded warrior initiatives. This high level leadership is critical if we are going to continue to improve the quality of care we provide our troops.
Investments in growing the force as well as in providing fair pay and good benefits are smart investments in our military's most valuable resource. Our military is only as strong as the skilled and dedicated men and women who serve.
Even with all the important provisions in this bill, I think it can be even better. It's been 60 years since President Harry S. Truman ended racial segregation in the military. In the intervening years, military leaders have come to believe that maintaining a highly qualified, diverse military--from the enlisted ranks to the four-star generals and admirals--is essential to the military's ability to provide for our national security. A military that clearly reflects equal opportunity for everyone is critical, not only for morale, but also for readiness. Just look at the increasingly diverse enemies we confront and the divergent environments into which we send our troops.
But despite future projections of minority growth in the United States, a recent senior-level Department of Defense projection found virtually no prospect for reaching adequate representation of minorities or women in the higher military ranks in the next decade. I am proud that increasing the racial/ethnic and gender diversity of our military leadership has become a strategic priority for the Department of Defense. The Department commissioned the Rand Corporation to make recommendations for how it could improve.
Issued in 2008, the Rand Corporation's report, titled Planning for Diversity, found that the Department of Defense remains ill prepared to retain and promote minorities and women to leadership positions. Specifically, the Department is still without a uniform definition of diversity as well as a department-wide plan to guide, support, and streamline diversity efforts. On the heels of the 60th anniversary of integration of the Armed Forces, we can and must do better.
I filed an amendment to the fiscal year 2009 Defense Authorization Act that would jump start the creation of a strategic plan for achieving this departmental priority: ensuring diversity at all levels of the military. My amendment would create a high-level task force to study the current state of diversity at all levels of the Armed Forces and make recommendations for improvement. The task force would consist of senior members of the Armed Forces as well as individuals with expertise in cultivating and managing diversity in private or non-
profit organizations. The task force would develop the first department-wide definition of diversity, evaluate existing policies for encouraging diversity in and outside the military, and make recommendations for future action for increasing diversity at all levels and in all areas of the military departments.
The amendment builds on a provision included in the House Defense Authorization bill and incorporates comments by the Department of Defense. The Department stated in formal comments that it ``welcome[s] the assistance that would come from the work proposed by the legislation.''
I am grateful to my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus, especially Congressman Elijah E. Cummings, Congresswoman Diane E. Watson, Congressman Hank Johnson, and Congressman Kendrick B. Meek who have worked so hard on this issue and on this provision. I am very disappointed today that the amendment could neither receive a vote nor be included in the bill by unanimous agreement. I hope that as the managers of this bill work to finalize the fiscal year 2009 Defense Authorization Act, they will consider the language I have proposed to increase diversity at all levels of the Armed Forces.
Mr. President, in closing, I commend my colleagues Chairman Levin, Senator Warner, and all the other members of the Armed Services Committee for their hard work to craft and pass this bill. I look forward to casting my vote to support it. I also want to take a moment to congratulate Senator Warner for his work on countless other critical pieces of legislation in years past. I will miss his wise counsel on issues of national and regional importance, I will miss his good humor, and I will miss his grace. I wish him only the best in retirement.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise today to speak about the 2009 Defense authorization bill. I will vote in favor of this legislation primarily because I support pay raises for our troops, but I have some very serious concerns about how this bill came to the floor.
This $612.5 billion measure will authorize spending for national security programs in the Defense and Energy departments. That includes
$70 billion to fight the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a 3.9 percent pay raise for military personnel. I proudly support those appropriations.
In the last year and a half, we have made incredible progress in our war against the terrorists, and in building a sustainable democracy in the heart of the Arab world. Since General Petraeus became the U.S. Senior Commander in Iraq. al-Qaida has been swept from its former strongholds in Anbar province and Baghdad. Roadside bomb attacks and fatalities in Iraq have fallen by nearly 90 percent. The Iraqis--
through organizations such as ``The Sons of Iraq''--are taking more responsibility for their security.
General Petraeus recently left his position as Commanding General in Iraq to become the Commander of U.S. Central Command. The task of leading U.S. forces in Iraq now rests in the capable hands of GEN Ray Odierno. I commend General Odierno on his promotion, and on behalf of all America, I wish him success in completing the ``surge strategy.''
We must resist calls for premature withdrawal from Iraq and maintain our presence there until victory is secure. Today's appropriations bill gives us the resources to continue that mission. However, the U.S. Senate has a long history of allowing members of both the majority and the minority to offer amendments, debate changes, and ensure that the concerns and ideas of every Senator are addressed. Traditionally a majority of Senators will decide an issue after bipartisan deliberation. But in this case, the Senate majority leader decided the issue with no input from the minority.
The 110th Congress has experienced a record number of cloture votes--
due in no small part to the tactics employed by the majority. The methods by which this bill came to the floor are not in the best long-
term interests of the Senate. They are not in the best interests of the American people. The citizens of our country deserve better.
I am glad that our brave service members will have the armaments and equipment they need, and that our veterans will have the health care and other benefits they deserve.
Once again, I will vote for this legislation because the risk to our soldiers and veterans is too great. Time simply ran out. But we should all be concerned by the manner in which this bill was presented.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I regret that again this year I must vote against the National Defense Authorization Act. I support many of the provisions in this bill, which authorizes the activities of the Department of Defense, including important research, development and procurement funding to improve our Armed Forces and the operations and maintenance funding necessary to ensure the smooth running of the military services over the coming year. I support these activities, which not only benefit those servicemembers currently serving overseas in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also help build a strong and effective military for the future. I applaud the fine work of Senator Levin and Senator Warner and the staff of the Committee on Armed Services for their efforts in putting together a bill that is, in most ways, a good piece of legislation.
However, S. 3001 also provides authorization for the funding of continued operations in Iraq at levels requested by the Bush administration and without any provision to either transition the military mission in Iraq or to bring our troops home. In my view, providing this funding without conditions, without strings attached, is unacceptable.
In my view, the Congress should not continue to write blank checks for the prosecution of this apparently endless war in Iraq. In effect, this bill also provides a congressional authorization to fund the continuation of President Bush's policy in Iraq into 2009, without any strings attached. Amendments filed that would have limited the mission of U.S. forces in Iraq were not even considered during debate on the bill. That is truly unfortunate.
Continuing to prosecute this war at the current rate is straining our military to the breaking point. Many units and individuals are enduring their third and fourth rotations to Iraq, and because no limits have been placed on the mission or force levels, there is no end in sight, despite efforts to declare the surge a success in bringing stability to Iraq. More and more military analysts are warning that the U.S. Armed Forces are at risk for becoming a ``hollow force,'' as happened after the Vietnam conflict, putting our entire Nation at greater risk.
Our military commanders in Afghanistan are urgently requesting additional and substantial numbers of troops to counter the rising violence there, but there are few troops to spare for them. As a result, we risk losing whatever gains have been made there, in the actual central front of the war on terror and the hunt for Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaida organization. We must win that fight, there, or face more attacks like the one that took place today against the U.S. embassy in Yemen.
I support our troops and I will not let them to lack for anything needed to do their job or to keep them safe. But I cannot countenance leaving them in Iraq forever, with no limits placed on their mission and no assurances by our commander in Iraq that this war is making the United States any safer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all postcloture time is yielded back, the pending amendments are withdrawn, and the clerk will read the title of the bill for the third time.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read the third time.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a significant second.
The yeas and nays are ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
My KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 88, nays 8, as follows:
YEAS--88
AkakaAlexanderBarrassoBaucusBayhBennettBingamanBondBoxerBrownBrownbackBunningBurrCantwellCardinCarperCaseyChamblissClintonCochranColemanCollinsConradCorkerCornynCraigCrapoDoddDoleDomeniciDorganDurbinEnsignEnziFeinsteinGrassleyGreggHagelHarkinHatchHutchisonInhofeInouyeIsaksonJohnsonKerryKlobucharKohlKylLandrieuLautenbergLeahyLevinLiebermanLincolnLugarMartinezMcCaskillMcConnellMenendezMikulskiMurkowskiMurrayNelson (FL)Nelson (NE)PryorReedReidRobertsRockefellerSalazarSchumerSessionsShelbySmithSnoweSpecterStabenowStevensSununuTesterThuneVoinovichWarnerWebbWhitehouseWickerWyden
NAYS--8
AllardByrdCoburnDeMintFeingoldGrahamSandersVitter
NOT VOTING--4
BidenKennedyMcCainObama
The bill (S. 3001), as amended, was passed, as follows:
(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
____________________
