[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 173 (Wednesday, December 22, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10936-S10938]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IKE SKELTON NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in legislative session and in morning
business, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
immediate consideration of Calendar No. 717, H.R. 6523, the Department
of Defense authorization bill, that a Levin-McCain amendment that is at
the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read the third time and
passed, 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.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, a
lot of people may not understand that unanimous consent request that
was just made by the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
Am I correct, I ask my friend from Michigan, that this is in order to
pass the National Defense Authorization Act? We have gone, I believe,
48 years and passed one, and there are vital programs, policies, and
pay raises for the men and women in the military and other policy
matters that are vital to successfully carrying out the two wars we are
in and providing the men and women who are serving with the best
possible equipment and capabilities to win those conflicts. Am I
correct in assuming that is what this agreement is about?
Mr. LEVIN. The Senator from Arizona is correct. It is the bill--
slightly reduced to eliminate some of the controversial provisions,
which would have prevented us from getting to this point, but this is
the Defense authorization bill, and 90 to 95 percent of the bill is the
bill we worked so hard on in committee on a bipartisan basis. I am very
certain that our men and women in uniform, as this Christmas season
comes upon us, will be very grateful indeed that we did this in the
49th year--and if the House will move swiftly today and pass this bill,
as we have done in the previous 48 years--passed an authorization
bill--which is so essential to their success.
Mr. McCAIN. I will not object.
Finally, I thank the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
I assure my colleagues that the controversial aspects of this
legislation have been removed, and only the essential parts remain. I
thank the Senator from Michigan. I hope we will move forward and get
this done today so that we can again provide our men and women who are
serving with the best capability to defend this Nation.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 4921) was agreed to, as follows:
(Purpose: To strike title XVII)
Strike title XVII and the corresponding table of contents
on page 18.
The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill (H.R. 6523), as amended, was passed.
kc-x tanker competition
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the
esteemed chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator
Levin.
Mr. President, I recognize that there are objections to bringing up a
bill dealing with the Air Force KC-X tanker competition requiring the
Secretary of Defense to take into account any unfair competitive
advantages given to any of the competitors for the contract. This
provision has passed twice on the House side now by overwhelming
majorities and I am shocked that the same language cannot be included
in the Defense authorization bill or passed as a stand-alone bill.
These are legitimate concerns being brushed under the rug rather than
dealt with head on. I recognize that with such a short amount of time
left in this Congress we will have trouble convincing our colleagues
that we are allowing a terrible precedent to be set and an expensive
injustice is being done to American workers and taxpayers. In the last
competition, GAO found multiple instances of uneven treatment that when
compiled showed a pervasive bias in support of EADS/Airbus.
Unfortunately, we now are seeing a similar pattern of behavior emerging
and I have concerns about the conduct of the competition by the
Pentagon for this U.S. taxpayer-funded $35 billion contract. At every
turn, it seems the Pentagon has gone out of its way to advantage EADS/
Airbus for example, the Pentagon has structured the competition in ways
that minimize the cost advantages of an American-made tanker; extended
deadlines to accommodate EADS/Airbus; adjusted analytical models in the
competition in ways that favor only the EADS/Airbus tanker; and, most
recently decided to continue using the so-called IFARA war scenario
model in the competition despite having inadvertently released
proprietary information that disclosed Boeing's scores to EADS/Airbus.
In recent press stories EADS/Airbus officials claimed they did not look
at Boeing's proprietary information but it has now come out that in
fact EADS/Airbus did look at it. This type of behavior is unacceptable.
In light of the serious national security and economic implications
of the KC-X Tanker competition, I am respectfully requesting that the
chairman of the Armed Services Committee initiate an investigation into
these issues--in particular the inadvertent release of proprietary
data--to determine whether or not laws and fair competition regulations
have been appropriately followed. Further, I am seeking the chairman's
assurance today that he intends to call departmental witnesses before
the Armed Services Committee to ensure that the committee is fully
informed on the progress, status, and conclusions regarding the
aforementioned investigation and any other DOD investigations into this
and related matters.
Mr. LEVIN. I am prepared to direct staff immediately to initiate an
investigation into the release of proprietary data to determine if laws
and fair competition regulations have been appropriately followed. I
also intend to hold one or more hearings by February 1 to consider
these issues and to review the propriety of the procurement process of
the KC-X tanker competition as it relates to this issue.
Pay For Nonregular Service
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to comment on a provision in the
fiscal year 2011 NDAA which the Senate passed today.
Section 635 of H.R. 6523, The Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2011, contains a sense of Congress
concerning age and service requirements for retired pay for nonregular
service. The sense of Congress serves to clarify a provision which I
authored and which is contained in section 647 of the fiscal year 2008
National Defense Authorization Act. I appreciate the committee's desire
to clarify the intent of that provision and ensure proper credit is
given to members of the Reserve.
As can be inferred from the title of the provision in the fiscal year
2008 NDAA, the intent of the provision is to provide earlier retired
pay to members of the Ready Reserve who serve in active Federal status
or perform active
[[Page S10937]]
duty for significant periods. The sense of Congress in the fiscal year
2011 NDAA notes that the intent of the original provision was for
reservists to begin receiving retired pay according to time spent
deployed, by 3 months for every 90-day period spent on active duty over
the course of a career, rather than limiting qualifying time to such
periods wholly served within the same fiscal year. I agree with this
sense of the Congress to the extent that reservists should receive
credit for each 90-day period of continuous duty even though that duty
may span 2 different fiscal years.
However, the original intent of the provision, as I authored it, was
not to give credit for any 90 days of duty served anytime in one's
career, regardless of whether or not that duty was served
consecutively. This would not be ``active Federal status or active duty
for significant periods,'' it would just be the normal accumulation of
days served over the course of a reservists career.
My intent in the original provision was to reward reservists who were
deploying or serving an active duty tour for a significant period of
time. It was not to allow for early receipt of retired pay simply
because, over the course of a reservist's career, the number of days
served added up to 90.
I would like to yield to the honorable ranking member of the
committee, the Senator from Arizona, and solicit his perspective on
this matter.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Georgia and appreciate his
desire to clarify this provision.
I agree, as the title of the provision in the fiscal year 2008 NDAA
makes clear, that the intent of the change to the law was to expand
eligibility for earlier retired pay to members of the Ready Reserve who
deploy on active duty in support of contingency operations for
significant periods. It is unfortunate that some reservists who perform
90 days of deployed, consecutive duty or more that has spanned two
fiscal years have not received credit under this provision. The sense
of the Congress in section 635 of the fiscal year 2011 NDAA seeks to
clarify this, and I agree with the Senator from Georgia that the duty
needs to be ``for significant periods''--it should not simply be the
accumulation of 90 days of duty over the course of a reservists'
career.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the ranking member for his comments and I
appreciate his willingness to clarify this issue.
Land Transfer
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an issue
related to the fiscal year 2011 National Defense Authorization Act.
Chairman Levin has worked incredibly hard to get this bill passed by
unanimous consent, and I appreciate his efforts, the efforts of Senator
McCain and the efforts of rest of the Armed Services Committee members.
In the fiscal year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, the
chairman helped me to include language that would allow for a land
exchange between Camp Joseph T. Robinson, which is an Army National
Guard facility, and their neighbor, the city of North Little Rock, AR.
This land conveyance is in the best interest of the military for a
couple of reasons. First, the land that the Arkansas National Guard is
giving up is so steep that it cannot be used for mounted or dismounted
training. Second, the land cannot be totally secured due to extremely
rugged terrain. Lastly, due to the lack of complete security, there is
a possibility that a civilian could enter the property and be seriously
injured. The land that would be gained by the Arkansas National Guard
is well suited for mounted and dismounted training and able to be
secured.
As all entities were working in good faith toward executing this land
exchange, it was brought to my attention that we need one minor
adjustment to this language. This adjustment would be a technical
correction that would specify that the land exchange is to occur
between the city of North Little Rock, AR, and the Military Department
of Arkansas, rather than between the city of North Little Rock, AR, and
the United States of America. This clarification is necessary since
Camp Joseph T. Robinson is an entity of the State of Arkansas rather
than an entity of the United States of America.
I understand that there was a timing issue this year and a need to
pass the bill by unanimous consent in the Senate so we did not have a
formal amendment process during consideration of the bill. However,
this technical correction is important to Arkansas. I would ask for the
chairman's assistance in addressing this issue at the first opportunity
next year.
Mr. LEVIN. I appreciate the Senator from Arkansas bringing this issue
to my attention, and I will work with him next year to find a
resolution.
Mr. PRYOR. I appreciate the remarks of the chairman and thank him for
his help on this matter. His leadership on military issues is
invaluable in the U.S. Senate.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am deeply disappointed that H.R. 6523,
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, includes a
section to prohibit the transfer of terrorism suspects at Guantanamo
Bay to the United States to face prosecution. This section takes away
one of the greatest tools we have to protect our national security--our
ability to prosecute terrorism defendants in Federal courts. The result
is to make it more likely that terrorists will not be brought to
justice.
Current law allows for the transfer of these terrorist suspects for
prosecution in the Federal courts. This is a policy that I strongly
support. I want to see those who have committed acts of terrorism
convicted in our justice system and sentenced to long terms in prison.
Our Federal judges and Federal prosecutors have extraordinary
experience dealing with complex terrorism and conspiracy cases. The
record speaks for itself. Since September 11, 2001, over 425 persons
have been convicted on terrorism related charges in the Federal
courts--including more than 70 defendants since President Obama took
office in January 2009.
And yet, despite this strong record, Congress continues to try to tie
the hands of law enforcement and other security agencies. The
prohibition contained in section 1032 of H.R. 6523 is a complete bar on
transfers of terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay to the United States.
There are no exceptions to this prohibition for Federal prosecutions.
Rather than addressing the question of how to close the prison facility
at Guantanamo Bay once and for all, Congress is obstructing efforts to
bring these criminals to justice.
In a letter to the Senate leadership dated December 9, 2010, Attorney
General Eric Holder warned that this provision would ``set a dangerous
precedent with serious implications for the impartial administration of
justice.'' The Attorney General further stated that, by restricting the
discretion of the executive branch to prosecute terrorists in Article
III courts, Congress would ``tie the hands of the President and his
national security advisers'' and would be ``taking away one of our most
potent weapons in the fight against terrorism,'' Accordingly, this
provision is short-sighted and unwise.
This prohibition language also sets a dangerous political precedent.
Once the Senate votes in favor of a total bar to transfers, even for
criminal trial, we will see it offered again and again. This is a door
that, once opened, will not easily be closed.
I can think of only two possible motivations for including this ban
of all transfers to the United States. One is to ensure that the
detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay, some for years without charge,
can only be tried by military commissions. The other is to ensure that
these suspects are simply held in military detention at Guantanamo Bay
indefinitely. The very strict restrictions on transfers of suspects
from Guantanamo Bay to other nations in section 1033 of H.R. 6523
suggests that indefinite detention is, in fact, the goal of these
provisions.
For those who wish to see terrorism suspects tried only in military
commissions, I urge them to study the record. The military commissions
devised by the prior administration were plagued with problems and
repeatedly overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Obama
administration has worked hard to revise the military commissions to
make sure they meet constitutional standards. However, the new system
is still largely untested, and the rules for these commissions were
only just released earlier this year.
Military commissions have achieved only five convictions since the
September 11, 2001, attacks. Four of the
[[Page S10938]]
five resulted from pleas. The sentences handed down in these five cases
have been much shorter than those meted out in Federal court
convictions. In contrast, our Federal courts have a long and
distinguished history of successfully prosecuting even the most
atrocious violent acts, and our judicial system is respected throughout
the world.
The vital role of the rule of law and our judicial system in the
fight against terrorism is also strongly supported by leaders of our
military who served honorably to protect our nation and uphold the
Constitution. On December 10, 2010, a group of retired generals and
admirals voiced their opposition against restricting law enforcement's
ability to try terrorists in Federal criminal courts, and wrote that,
``By trying terrorist suspects in civilian courts we deprive them of
the warrior status they crave and treat them as the criminals and thugs
they are. As long as Guantanamo is open it offers America's enemies a
propaganda tool that is being used effectively to recruit others to
their cause and undermines U.S. efforts to win support in the
communities where our troops most need local cooperation to succeed.''
I believe strongly, as all Americans do, that we must do everything
we can to prevent terrorism, and we must ensure severe punishment is
imposed upon those who do us harm. As a former prosecutor, I have made
certain that perpetrators of violent crimes receive serious punishment.
I also believe strongly that we can ensure our safety and security, and
bring terrorists to justice, in ways that are consistent with our laws
and values. Congress should not limit law enforcement's ability to do
just that.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the proud tradition our committee has
maintained every year since 1961 continues with the Senate's passage of
this, the 49th consecutive national defense authorization bill. We
always have to work long and hard to pass this bill, but it is worth
every bit of the effort we put into it because it is for our troops and
their families as well as, obviously, our Nation. I thank all Senators
for their roles in keeping this tradition going.
Our bipartisanship on this committee makes this moment, as late as it
is, possible. I am proud to serve with Senator McCain and am grateful
for his partnership.
I thank all our committee staff members. With their extraordinary
drive and many personal sacrifices to get this bill done--and we had to
get it done twice because we had to modify the bill that was originally
presented to the Senate, as everybody here knows. Our staff has given
another meaning to this season of giving. Led by Rick DeBobes, our
committee's staff director, and Joe Bowab, our Republican staff
director, they have given everything imaginable, and some things
unimaginable, to get this bill passed. So we thank all of them.
I ask that, as a tribute to the professionalism of our staff, and our
gratitude, their names be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Richard D. DeBobes, Staff Director; Joseph W. Bowab,
Republican Staff Director; Adam J. Barker, Professional Staff
Member; June M. Borawski, Printing and Documents Clerk; Leah
C. Brewer, Nominations and Hearings Clerk; Christian D.
Brose, Professional Staff Member; Joseph M. Bryan,
Professional Staff Member; Pablo E. Carrillo, Minority
Investigative Counsel; Jonathan D. Clark, Counsel; Ilona R.
Cohen, Counsel; Christine E. Cowart, Chief Clerk; Madelyn R.
Creedon, Counsel; Gabriella E. Fahrer, Counsel; Richard W.
Fieldhouse, Professional Staff Member; Creighton Greene,
Professional Staff Member; John W. Heath, Jr., Minority
Investigative Counsel; Gary J. Howard, Systems Administrator;
Paul C. Hutton IV, Professional Staff Member; Jessica L.
Kingston, Research Assistant; Jennifer R. Knowles, Staff
Assistant.
Michael V. Kostiw, Professional Staff Member; Michael J.
Kuiken, Professional Staff Member; Kathleen A. Kulenkampff,
Staff Assistant; Mary J. Kyle, Legislative Clerk; Christine
G. Lang, Staff Assistant; Gerald J. Leeling, Counsel; Daniel
A. Lerner, Professional Staff Member; Peter K. Levine,
General Counsel; Gregory R. Lilly, Executive Assistant for
the Minority; Hannah I. Lloyd, Staff Assistant; Jason W.
Maroney, Counsel; Thomas K. McConnell, Professional Staff
Member; William G.P. Monahan, Counsel; Davis M. Morriss,
Minority Counsel; Lucian L. Niemeyer, Professional Staff
Member; Michael J. Noblet, Professional Staff Member;
Christopher J. Paul, Professional Staff Member; Cindy
Pearson, Assistant Chief Clerk and Security Manager; Roy F.
Phillips, Professional Staff Member; John H. Quirk V,
Professional Staff Member.
Robie I. Samanta Roy, Professional Staff Member; Brian F.
Sebold, Staff Assistant; Russell L. Shaffer, Counsel; Travis
E. Smith, Special Assistant; Jennifer L. Stoker, Security
Clerk; William K. Sutey, Professional Staff Member; Diana G.
Tabler, Professional Staff Member; Mary Louise Wagner,
Professional Staff Member; Richard F. Walsh, Minority
Counsel; Breon N. Wells, Staff Assistant; Dana W. White,
Professional Staff Member.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________