[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 180 (Monday, November 28, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7884-S7898]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of S. 1867, which the clerk will
report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1867) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2012 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:
Levin/McCain amendment No. 1092, to bolster the detection
and avoidance of counterfeit electronic parts.
McConnell (for Kirk) amendment No. 1084, to require the
President to impose sanctions on foreign financial
institutions that conduct transactions with the Central Bank
of Iran.
Leahy amendment No. 1072, to enhance the national defense
through empowerment of the National Guard, enhancement of the
functions of the National Guard Bureau, and improvement of
Federal-State military coordination in domestic emergency
response.
Paul/Gillibrand amendment No. 1064, to repeal the
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution of 2002.
Merkley amendment No. 1174, to express the sense of
Congress regarding the expedited transition of responsibility
for military and security operations in Afghanistan to the
Government of Afghanistan.
Feinstein amendment No. 1125, to clarify the applicability
of requirements for military custody with respect to
detainees.
Feinstein amendment No. 1126, to limit the authority of
Armed Forces to detain citizens of the United States under
section 1031.
Udall of Colorado amendment No. 1107, to revise the
provisions relating to detainee matters.
Landrieu/Snowe amendment No. 1115, to reauthorize and
improve the SBIR and STTR programs, and for other purposes.
Franken amendment No. 1197, to require contractors to make
timely payments to subcontractors that are small business
concerns.
Cardin/Mikulski amendment No. 1073, to prohibit expansion
or operation of the District of Columbia National Guard Youth
Challenge Program in Anne Arundel County, MD.
Begich amendment No. 1114, to amend title 10, United States
Code, to authorize space-available travel on military
aircraft for members of the reserve components, a member or
former member of a reserve component who is eligible for
retired pay but for age, widows and widowers of retired
members, and dependents.
Begich amendment No. 1149, to authorize a land conveyance
and exchange at Joint Base Elmendorf Richardson, AK.
Shaheen amendment No. 1120, to exclude cases in which
pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest from the
prohibition on funding of abortions by the Department of
Defense.
Collins amendment No. 1105, to make permanent the
requirement for certifications relating to the transfer of
detainees at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba, to foreign countries and other foreign entities.
Collins amendment No. 1155, to authorize educational
assistance under the Armed Forces Health Professions
Scholarship program for pursuit of advanced degrees in
physical therapy and occupational therapy.
Collins amendment No. 1158, to clarify the permanence of
the prohibition on transfers of recidivist detainees at
United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to foreign
countries and entities.
Collins/Shaheen amendment No. 1180, relating to man-
portable air-defense systems originating from Libya.
Inhofe amendment No. 1094, to include the Department of
Commerce in contract authority using competitive procedures
but excluding particular sources for establishing certain
research and development capabilities.
Inhofe amendment No. 1095, to express the sense of the
Senate on the importance of addressing deficiencies in mental
health counseling.
Inhofe amendment No. 1096, to express the sense of the
Senate on treatment options for members of the Armed Forces
and veterans for traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic
stress disorder.
Inhofe amendment No. 1097, to eliminate gaps and
redundancies between the over 200 programs within the
Department of Defense that address psychological health and
traumatic brain injury.
Inhofe amendment No. 1098, to require a report on the
impact of foreign boycotts on the defense industrial base.
[[Page S7885]]
Inhofe amendment No. 1099, to express the sense of Congress
that the Secretary of Defense should implement the
recommendations of the Comptroller General of the United
States regarding prevention, abatement, and data collection
to address hearing injuries and hearing loss among members of
the Armed Forces.
Inhofe amendment No. 1100, to extend to products and
services from Latvia existing temporary authority to procure
certain products and services from countries along a major
route of supply to Afghanistan.
Inhofe amendment No. 1101, to strike section 156, relating
to a transfer of Air Force C-12 aircraft to the Army.
Inhofe amendment No. 1102, to require a report on the
feasibility of using unmanned aerial systems to perform
airborne inspection of navigational aids in foreign airspace.
Inhofe amendment No. 1093, to require the detention at
United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, of high-
value enemy combatants who will be detained long term.
Casey amendment No. 1215, to require a certification on
efforts by the Government of Pakistan to implement a strategy
to counter improvised explosive devices.
Casey amendment No. 1139, to require contractors to notify
small business concerns that have been included in offers
relating to contracts let by Federal agencies.
McCain (for Cornyn) amendment No. 1200, to provide Taiwan
with critically needed United States-built multirole fighter
aircraft to strengthen its self-defense capability against
the increasing military threat from China.
McCain (for Ayotte) amendment No. 1066, to modify the
Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness Plan to provide
that a complete and validated full statement of budget
resources is ready by not later than September 30, 2014.
McCain (for Ayotte) modified amendment No. 1067, to require
notification of Congress with respect to the initial custody
and further disposition of members of al-Qaida and affiliated
entities.
McCain (for Ayotte) amendment No. 1068, to authorize lawful
interrogation methods in addition to those authorized by the
Army Field Manual for the collection of foreign intelligence
information through interrogations.
McCain (for Brown of Massachusetts/Boozman) amendment No.
1119, to protect the child custody rights of members of the
Armed Forces deployed in support of a contingency operation.
McCain (for Brown of Massachusetts) amendment No. 1090, to
provide that the basic allowance for housing in effect for a
member of the National Guard is not reduced when the member
transitions between active duty and full-time National Guard
duty without a break in active service.
McCain (for Brown of Massachusetts)) amendment No. 1089, to
require certain disclosures from postsecondary institutions
that participate in tuition assistance programs of the
Department of Defense.
McCain (for Wicker) amendment No. 1056, to provide for the
freedom of conscience of military chaplains with respect to
the performance of marriages.
McCain (for Wicker) amendment No. 1116, to improve the
transition of members of the Armed Forces with experience in
the operation of certain motor vehicles into careers
operating commercial motor vehicles in the private sector.
Udall of New Mexico amendment No. 1153, to include
ultralight vehicles in the definition of aircraft for
purposes of the aviation smuggling provisions of the Tariff
Act of 1930.
Udall of New Mexico amendment No. 1154, to direct the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish an open burn pit
registry to ensure that members of the Armed Forces who may
have been exposed to toxic chemicals and fumes caused by open
burn pits while deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq receive
information regarding such exposure.
Udall of New Mexico/Schumer amendment No. 1202, to clarify
the application of the provisions of the Buy American Act to
the procurement of photovoltaic devices by the Department of
Defense.
McCain (for Corker) amendment No. 1171, to prohibit funding
for any unit of a security force of Pakistan if there is
credible evidence that the unit maintains connections with an
organization known to conduct terrorist activities against
the United States or United States allies.
McCain (for Corker) amendment No. 1172, to require a report
outlining a plan to end reimbursements from the Coalition
Support Fund to the Government of Pakistan for operations
conducted in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.
McCain (for Corker) amendment No. 1173, to express the
sense of the Senate on the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization.
Levin (for Bingaman) amendment No. 1117, to provide for
national security benefits for White Sands Missile Range and
Fort Bliss.
Levin (for Gillibrand/Portman) amendment No. 1187, to
expedite the hiring authority for the defense information
technology/cyber workforce.
Levin (for Gillibrand/Blunt) amendment No. 1211, to
authorize the Secretary of Defense to provide assistance to
State National Guards to provide counseling and reintegration
services for members of reserve components of the Armed
Forces ordered to active duty in support of a contingency
operation, members returning from such active duty, veterans
of the Armed Forces, and their families.
Merkley amendment No. 1239, to expand the Marine Gunnery
Sergeant John David Fry scholarship to include spouses of
members of the Armed Forces who die in the line of duty.
Merkley amendment No. 1256, to require a plan for the
expedited transition of responsibility for military and
security operations in Afghanistan to the Government of
Afghanistan.
Merkley amendment No. 1257, to require a plan for the
expedited transition of responsibility for military and
security operations in Afghanistan to the Government of
Afghanistan.
Merkley amendment No. 1258, to require the timely
identification of qualified census tracts for purposes of the
HUBZone Program.
Leahy amendment No. 1087, to improve the provisions
relating to the treatment of certain sensitive national
security information under the Freedom of Information Act.
Leahy/Grassley amendment No. 1186, to provide the
Department of Justice necessary tools to fight fraud by
reforming the working capital fund.
Wyden/Merkley amendment No. 1160, to provide for the
closure of Umatilla Army Chemical Depot, OR.
Wyden amendment No. 1253, to provide for the retention of
members of the reserve components on active duty for a period
of 45 days following an extended deployment in contingency
operations or homeland defense missions to support their
reintegration into civilian life.
Ayotte (for Graham) amendment No. 1179, to specify the
number of judge advocates of the Air Force in the regular
grade of brigadier general.
Ayotte (for McCain) modified amendment No. 1230, to modify
the annual adjustment in enrollment fees for TRICARE Prime.
Ayotte (for Heller/Kirk) amendment No. 1137, to provide for
the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and the
relocation to Jerusalem of the United States Embassy in
Israel.
Ayotte (for Heller) amendment No. 1138, to provide for the
exhumation and transfer of remains of deceased members of the
Armed Forces buried in Tripoli, Libya.
Ayotte (for McCain) amendment No. 1247, to restrict the
authority of the Secretary of Defense to develop public
infrastructure on Guam until certain conditions related to
Guam realignment have been met.
Ayotte (for McCain) amendment No. 1246, to establish a
commission to study the United States force posture in East
Asia and the Pacific region.
Ayotte (for McCain) amendment No. 1229, to provide for
greater cybersecurity collaboration between the Department of
Defense and the Department of Homeland Security.
Ayotte (for McCain/Ayotte) amendment No. 1249, to limit the
use of cost-type contracts by the Department of Defense for
major defense acquisition programs.
Ayotte (for McCain) amendment No. 1220, to require
Comptroller General of the United States reports on the
Department of Defense implementation of justification and
approval requirements for certain sole-source contracts.
Ayotte (for McCain/Ayotte) amendment No. 1132, to require a
plan to ensure audit readiness of statements of budgetary
resources.
Ayotte (for McCain) amendment No. 1248, to expand the
authority for the overhaul and repair of vessels to the
United States, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands.
Ayotte (for McCain) amendment No. 1250, to require the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the probationary
period in the development of the short takeoff vertical
landing variant of the Joint Strike Fighter.
Ayotte (for McCain) amendment No. 1118, to modify the
availability of surcharges collected by commissary stores.
Sessions amendment No. 1182, to prohibit the permanent
stationing of more than two Army brigade combat teams within
the geographic boundaries of the United States European
Command.
Sessions amendment No. 1183, to require the maintenance of
a triad of strategic nuclear delivery systems.
Sessions amendment No. 1184, to limit any reduction in the
number of surface combatants of the Navy below 313 vessels.
Sessions amendment No. 1185, to require a report on a
missile defense site on the east coast of the United States.
Sessions amendment No. 1274, to clarify the disposition
under the law of war of persons detained by the Armed Forces
of the United States pursuant to the Authorization for Use of
Military Force.
Levin (for Reed) amendment No. 1146, to provide for the
participation of military technicians (dual status) in the
study on the termination of military technicians as a
distinct personnel management category.
Levin (for Reed) amendment No. 1147, to prohibit the
repayment of enlistment or related bonuses by certain
individuals who become employed as military technicians (dual
status) while already a member of a reserve component.
Levin (for Reed) amendment No. 1148, to provide rights of
grievance, arbitration, appeal, and review beyond the
adjutant general for military technicians.
Levin (for Reed) amendment No. 1204, to authorize a pilot
program on enhancements of Department of Defense efforts on
mental health in the National Guard and Reserves through
community partnerships.
Levin (for Reed) amendment No. 1294, to enhance consumer
credit protections for
[[Page S7886]]
members of the Armed Forces and their dependents.
Levin amendment No. 1293, to authorize the transfer of
certain high-speed ferries to the Navy.
Levin (for Boxer) amendment No. 1206, to implement
commonsense controls on the taxpayer-funded salaries of
defense contractors.
Levin (for Menendez) amendment No. 1292, to require the
President to impose sanctions with respect to the Central
Bank of Iran if the President determines that the Central
Bank of Iran has engaged in conduct that threatens the
national security of the United States or allies of the
United States.
Chambliss amendment No. 1304, to require a report on the
reorganization of the Air Force Materiel Command.
Levin (for Brown of Ohio) amendment No. 1259, to link
domestic manufacturers to defense supply chain opportunities.
Levin (for Brown of Ohio) amendment No. 1260, to strike
846, relating to a waiver of ``Buy American'' requirements
for procurement of components otherwise producible overseas
with specialty metal not produced in the United States.
Levin (for Brown of Ohio) amendment No. 1261, to extend
treatment of base closure areas as HUBZones for purposes of
the Small Business Act.
Levin (for Brown of Ohio) amendment No. 1262, to clarify
the meaning of ``produced'' for purposes of limitations on
the procurement by the Department of Defense of specialty
metals within the United States.
Levin (for Brown of Ohio) amendment No. 1263, to authorize
the conveyance of the John Kunkel Army Reserve Center,
Warren, OH.
Levin (for Leahy) amendment No. 1080, to clarify the
applicability of requirements for military custody with
respect to detainees.
Levin (for Wyden) amendment No. 1296, to require reports on
the use of indemnification agreements in Department of
Defense contracts.
Levin (for Pryor) amendment No. 1151, to authorize a death
gratuity and related benefits for Reserves who die during an
authorized stay at their residence during or between
successive days of inactive duty training.
Levin (for Pryor) amendment No. 1152, to recognize the
service in the reserve components of the Armed Forces of
certain persons by honoring them with status as veterans
under law.
Levin (for Nelson of Florida) amendment No. 1209, to repeal
the requirement for reduction of survivor annuities under the
Survivor Benefit Plan by veterans dependency and indemnity
compensation.
Levin (for Nelson of Florida) amendment No. 1210, to
require an assessment of the advisability of stationing
additional DDG-51 class destroyers at Naval Station Mayport,
FL.
Levin (for Nelson of Florida) amendment No. 1236, to
require a report on the effects of changing flag officer
positions within the Air Force Materiel Command.
Levin (for Nelson of Florida) amendment No. 1255, to
require an epidemiological study on the health of military
personnel exposed to burn pit emissions at Joint Base Balad.
Ayotte (for McCain) amendment No. 1281, to require a plan
for normalizing defense cooperation with the Republic of
Georgia.
Ayotte (for Blunt/Gillibrand) amendment No. 1133, to
provide for employment and reemployment rights for certain
individuals ordered to full-time National Guard duty.
Ayotte (for Blunt) amendment No. 1134, to require a report
on the policies and practices of the Navy for naming vessels
of the Navy.
Ayotte (for Murkowski) amendment No. 1286, to require a
Department of Defense inspector general report on theft of
computer tapes containing protected information on covered
beneficiaries under the TRICARE Program.
Ayotte (for Murkowski) amendment No. 1287, to provide
limitations on the retirement of C-23 aircraft.
Ayotte (for Rubio) amendment No. 1290, to strike the
national security waiver authority in section 1032, relating
to requirements for military custody.
Ayotte (for Rubio) amendment No. 1291, to strike the
national security waiver authority in section 1033, relating
to requirements for certifications relating to transfer of
detainees at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba, to foreign countries and entities.
Cloture Motion
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a cloture motion at the desk.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The cloture motion having been
presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the
motion.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the standing rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on S. 1867, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal year 2012.
Harry Reid, Carl Levin, Kent Conrad, Richard Blumenthal,
Claire McCaskill, Kay R. Hagan, Joe Manchin, Kirsten E.
Gillibrand, Mary L. Landrieu, Ben Nelson, Joseph I.
Lieberman, Bill Nelson, Jim Webb, Jack Reed,
Christopher A. Coons, Mark Begich, Jeanne Shaheen.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. 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.
ORDER OF PROCEDURE
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Republican
leader be recognized to offer his statement as if during leader time,
that there be no parliamentary efforts on his behalf at this time, and
that when he finishes his leader statement, I have the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
RECOGNITION OF THE MINORITY LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The minority leader is recognized.
WORKING TOGETHER
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, first I wish to welcome everybody back.
I hope everyone had a nice Thanksgiving.
Shortly before we all left last week, we got some disappointing news
when the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction announced it was
unable to reach the kind of bipartisan agreement many of us had been
hoping for. As I said then, this was a major disappointment to those of
us who had hoped the joint committee would ultimately agree to the
kinds of serious entitlement reforms and job-creating tax reforms that
all of us know would have been a big help in getting our fiscal house
in order and in jolting this economy back to life. Such an agreement
would have also sent a clear message to the American people and to the
world that despite our many differences, lawmakers here are capable of
coming together and making the kinds of very tough decisions about our
Nation's economic future that continue to elude lawmakers in Europe.
I know for a fact that Republicans wanted this committee to deliver,
and the good news is that we will still see $1.2 trillion in deficit
reduction. But, frankly, it is hard to escape the conclusion that some
in the White House and even some Democrats here in the Senate were
rooting for failure and doing what they could to ensure that failure
occurred. I mean, what else are we supposed to think when the
Democrats' top political strategist here in the Senate goes on national
television and predicts failure 2 weeks ahead of the deadline and then
comes right out and says--yesterday--that he thinks the outcome he
predicted is good politically for the President? This stuff isn't
rocket science, but it is a big mistake. It might seem like a good
political strategy to some, but it is bad for the country.
That is why I am continuing my call today for the Democrats who
control the Senate to work with us on jobs legislation that can
actually pass here in the Senate and that can get us beyond the
permanent campaign by actually getting something done by working
together. For the past several weeks, I have implored the Democratic
majority here in the Senate to work with us on a number of job-creating
bills that have already attracted strong bipartisan support over in the
House. It seems to me that if the two parties share control of power in
Washington, we should spend our time and our energies identifying job-
creating measures the two parties do agree on and make them law.
It is no secret that many people at the White House and a number of
Democrats here in the Senate would still rather spend their time
designing legislation to fail in the hopes of trying to frame up next
year's election. But with all due respect to the political strategists
over at the White House, I think most Americans would rather we took an
entirely different approach. That is why I think we should put aside
the massive stimulus bills along with the permanent tax hikes Democrats
are calling for in order to pay for them. In fact, I think it is safe
to say that any attempt to pass another temporary stimulus funded by a
permanent tax hike on the very people we are counting on to create the
private sector jobs we need in this country is purely political and not
intended to do a thing to
[[Page S7887]]
help the economy since we already know it is likely to fail with
bipartisan opposition.
Let's focus instead on the kinds of targeted bipartisan bills the
President quietly agreed to last month: the 3-percent withholding bill,
championed by Senator Scott Brown, and the veterans hiring bill. As I
have pointed out again and again, the House has been busy all year
passing bipartisan jobs bills just like these that we can rally around
in a sign of unity and common concern for the millions of Americans who
are looking for jobs. There is no reason we shouldn't focus on passing
these bills rather than using the Senate floor as the stage for
symbolic show votes that we know won't lead to anything except more
tension and political acrimony. We should do what we were sent here to
do, and that means more bill signings and fewer bus tours.
At the moment, the Senate business is the Defense authorization bill,
and there is a lot of work that needs to be done. We have a lot of
amendments pending on this important legislation. Members on both sides
would like to see these amendments taken up and voted on. So let's stay
on this legislation and focus on doing it right. Let's show we can
actually legislate around here. Once we are finished, I am hoping we
will be able to find a bipartisan path to resolve the other issues
before us before the end of the year.
Americans are growing tired of the same old political shouting
matches and political brinkmanship that has marked this Democratic-led
Senate over the past few years. They are tired of careening from one
crisis to another, holding their breath in the hopes that the two
parties will put their differences aside and work something out at the
eleventh hour, only to be disappointed when Democrats decide they would
prefer to have a political issue to run on rather than solutions to
vote on.
At last count, House Republicans had passed 22 jobs bills which were
designed not only to incentivize the private sector to create jobs but
which were also designed to attract strong bipartisan support. In other
words, they have been designing legislation to actually pass. They have
been legislating with an eye toward making a difference instead of
simply making a point. What I am saying is let's follow their lead.
Let's come together and pass more bipartisan jobs bills and show the
American people we are not going to settle for the easy way out. The
economic crisis we face is much too serious for more of the same.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of
debate only on the DOD authorization bill until 5 p.m. today.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I see that Senator Webb is on the floor. I
know he is going to be making some remarks in a few moments. I would
urge other colleagues of ours to do the same. We are in a period now
where debate is in order on any of the amendments, whether they are
pending or not pending or whether they have been filed and not been
made pending. This is an opportunity which is going to end, hopefully,
on Wednesday morning when we vote cloture.
We must get this bill passed. It is critically important to our men
and women in uniform. They deserve to have a defense authorization bill
passed. So I would urge colleagues who have amendments they have filed
to come to the floor this afternoon to debate their amendments.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I rise as the chairman of the Subcommittee
on Personnel of the Armed Services Committee to speak on our bill. I
would like to begin my comments on this national defense authorization
by saying what a privilege and an honor it has been to work with
Chairman Levin and Senator McCain.
I say this as someone who spent 4 years as a committee counsel in
another era and then another 5 years in the Pentagon, 4 of them as
Assistant Secretary of Defense, and Secretary of the Navy working with
the Congress, and finally as a Member of the Senate. I believe Chairman
Levin is the epitome of what a chairman, a full committee chairman of
the Senate should be.
I have known Senator McCain for many years. As one would expect, we
have not agreed on some political issues. But I have also enormous
regard for Senator McCain as well. I would like to also thank members
of the Personnel Subcommittee, especially the ranking member, Senator
Graham, for the work they have done in preparing this legislation. I
would also like to thank our staff: Gary Leeling, John Clark, and Brie
Fahrer for all of the hard work they have done in order to bring this
bill forward.
Members of the Personnel Subcommittee, as well as our colleagues on
the full committee, have worked together in a collaborative way to
improve the quality of life of our men and women in uniform and of
their families. Senator Graham and I share the goal of doing everything
we can to address the needs of our active duty, National Guard, and
Reserve members, DOD civilian personnel, and their family members. They
have answered every call and met every mission asked of them with
selfless service.
The Personnel Subcommittee provisions in this bill are a result of a
bipartisan team effort. The bill includes many provisions important to
the quality of life for our service members and their families. I would
like to highlight just a few:
The bill authorizes $174.6 billion for military personnel and health
care, $5.1 billion more than what Congress authorized last year, and
$480 million under the President's budget request;
the bill authorizes an across-the-board military pay raise of 1.6
percent, which matches the annual increase in the Economic Cost Index.
I understand that all of America is suffering in these economic times,
and the Federal workforce is currently under a pay freeze. However,
this pay raise for our service members reflects their unique conditions
of service and special sacrifices on behalf of the Nation during the
prolonged combat operations of the past 10 years;
the bill reauthorizes more than 30 types of bonuses and special pays
aimed at encouraging recruiting and retention of the highest caliber
individual;
the bill authorizes fiscal year 2012 active-duty end strength of
562,000 for the Army; 325,700 for the Navy; 202,100 for the Marine
Corps; and 332,800 for the Air Force;
the bill authorizes a total of $30 million for supplemental impact
aid, including $25 million for heavily impacted schools, and $5 million
for schools with military children with severe disabilities;
the bill authorizes service secretaries to mobilize Reserve component
units and personnel for preplanned and budgeted missions to enhance the
use of the operational Reserve;
the bill requires the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to develop a comprehensive policy on the
retention of and access to evidence and records relating to sexual
assaults involving service members;
the bill prohibits the denial of reenlistment of a service member who
has been determined by a Physical Evaluation Board, PEB, to be fit for
duty but who is subsequently determined to be unsuitable for continued
military service for conditions considered by the PEB;
the bill also includes important provisions that will help the
Department achieve cost savings and realize efficiencies in its
military personnel and health care accounts, including:
reducing the overall active-duty end strength by almost 10,000, and
authorizing force management tools to facilitate further force
reductions planned over the next several years;
consolidating and reforming the existing statutory framework related
to travel and transportation allowances for services members, their
families, and other authorized travelers to achieve efficiencies and
savings in the travel area;
requiring hostile fire pay and imminent danger pay be prorated based
on the number of days spent in a qualifying area; and
requiring that beneficiaries newly enrolled in the Uniformed Services
Family Health Plan transition to TRICARE for Life when they become
eligible for Medicare, the same as all other military retirees.
[[Page S7888]]
Finally, I wish to highlight what I consider to be the moral contract
we have with the men and women of the military who volunteer to wear
the cloth of our Nation in military service.
While the department properly insists on providing the highest
quality health care, an imperative reflected in the provisions of this
bill, we are also mindful of sharply rising health costs. As the
Secretary of Defense testified earlier this year, there has been a
nearly three-fold increase, 276.3 percent, in Defense health care costs
over the last decade, from $19 billion in 2001 to $52.5 billion in the
President's budget request this year.
A number of factors have driven this increase, including several
important enhancements to the TRICARE program and other initiatives
specifically focused on meeting the medical and health-care needs of a
force that has been subjected to the unrelenting strain of 10 years of
combat operations.
It is important to note, however, that such cost increases are not
unique to the Department of Defense. Similar cost growth has also
occurred in civilian health care programs during the same period.
According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, total U.S.
health expenditures from 2000 to 2009 have increased by 181 percent,
from $1.37 trillion in 2000 to $2.48 trillion in 2009.
My colleagues on the subcommittee and full committee considered this
issue very carefully during our mark-up of this bill. I believe we have
struck a reasonable and appropriate balance. This bill does not
prohibit the pharmacy copayment changes, for example, or TRICARE Prime
enrollment fees proposed by the administration, but it does limit
annual increases in the Prime enrollment fee to the cost of living
increase in retired pay, beginning in fiscal year 2013.
Looking ahead, I believe the Department of Defense can reduce its
health care costs in a number of ways, including more efficient
operations. Those options should be explored carefully before
contemplating major changes to today's program for the sake of so-
called budget efficiencies if we are to maintain our moral contract
with our service members.
I know that many of my colleagues plan to offer a number of
amendments to this bill, and I look forward to working with them to
make this bill even better.
Congress has passed a defense authorization bill for 49 consecutive
years. I urge my colleagues to make it 50 and pass this important
legislation as quickly as possible.
I point out that we have done the best job we can do in terms of
bringing a bill to the floor that will take care of the needs of the
men and women who serve in our military and the national security needs
of our Nation. I know we are going to go into a period pretty soon
where we are going to be going through the defense budget as well as
the other areas of the expenditures of this country.
I just hope people will keep in mind, as we start making comparisons
with military service versus civilian service, that military service is
unique in this country in more ways than sometimes we recognize. I
remember when I first came to the Senate hearing the report of the
Dole-Shalala Commission on Military Compensation. There was a great
deal of comparison with respect to how they develop compensation
analysis in the civilian sector.
Something we have to remember when we look at the areas of the U.S.
military, particularly on the manpower personnel side, is a person
cannot pick their job. Many people come in because they want to spend a
portion of their lives serving their country. They cannot decide, if
they do not like who they are working for, that they want to leave.
They cannot quit their job. They cannot decide they do not want to be
transferred if they are being sent to a place they do not want to go.
By the way, they might get shot at, blown up, or killed.
This is a unique environment. We tend to forget this when budget cuts
come or when the hostilities fade away, that we have an obligation to
be the lifetime stewards of the people who have stepped forward and put
themselves on the line on behalf of our country.
There are provisions in this authorization bill that relate
particularly to our basing system in Asia. I have spent a good part of
my life working on these issues. I would like to say right at the
outset that I strongly advocate a strategy-driven review of all of our
bases around the world. I think we need to do a zero sum analysis based
on our strategy as to which bases we should keep in operation and which
ones perhaps we should not. But there is a unique situation that exists
at the moment in terms of the vital interests we have as the key
balancing force in Asia, and we have been working on this.
We have developed--the chairman, Senator McCain, and myself have
worked very hard to develop language in this legislation that would
call for an independent review of the basing proposals that have been
on the table in Korea and Okinawa and Guam. Particularly, with the
situation on Okinawa, this has become an issue that is larger than
simply American military bases in Japan. The inability of our two
governments to have come up with a workable solution to the basing
system on Okinawa has created one of the most difficult domestic
political situations inside Japan today. This has been going on for 15
years. There have been 15 years of uncertainty. We need to move forward
in a timely manner. It cannot be kicked down the road any longer.
We have a formula inside this authorization bill which will allow
independent eyes to come in and do an analysis of where these bases
need to go, sort of a step away from the turf protection one often sees
among the military services inside the Pentagon. There is also going to
be considered, possibly as early as later today, an amendment that will
allow the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to become a full member of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
I oppose this amendment. I am going to take some time to explain
this. I realize this is a moving train. I think we have 70 cosponsors
on this amendment. But I have offered a second-degree amendment which
would basically say let's take a timeout. Let's get another look. Let's
look at the potential implications of putting the Chief of the National
Guard Bureau as a full member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
I say this as someone who has, as all of us, a tremendous regard for
what the National Guard has been doing not only over the past 10 years
but through the course of our entire history. One tends to forget,
because of the lack of the use of the National Guard during the Vietnam
war, that our history has been marked by instances of the National
Guard stepping forward to serve during war. They were the preponderance
of our military forces in World War I and World War II once
mobilization was declared. They sent 100,000 people into Korea.
Again, I say this as someone who spent 3 years as the principal
adviser to the Secretary of Defense and Guard and Reserve programs when
Cap Weinberger was Secretary of Defense. I was the First Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs.
The National Guard is a unique composite. To put the Chief of the
National Guard Bureau as a full member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in
my view and in the view of all of the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of
Defense, would be confusing. In the words of Secretary Panetta, it
``would not improve upon this advisory function or advance the
statutory purpose, rather it would introduce inconsistencies among the
JCS members and potentially negatively affect the formulation of an
integrated joint force by fostering the impression that the National
Guard is a separate service.''
All of the Joint Chiefs agree on this position. In fact, the hearing
we had on this issue was the only hearing in modern memory where all of
the Joint Chiefs showed up to state their views.
I ask unanimous consent that letters from the Joint Chiefs, from the
Secretary of Defense, and from two of the three Service Secretaries be
printed in the Record stating that opposition.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Secretary of Defense,
Defense Pentagon,
Washington, DC, November 15, 2011.
Hon. Carl Levin,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your request for the
Department's views on S.
[[Page S7889]]
1025, the ``National Guard Empowerment and State-National
Defense Integration Act of 2011.'' I share the view of the
many supporters of this bill that our citizen soldiers and
airmen play a critical role both at home and abroad. Although
I support further strengthening our National Guard, I do not
agree with the approach taken by this bill to accomplish that
laudable goal.
Section 2 of the bill grants the Chief of the National
Guard Bureau membership on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I
oppose this change. The Chief of the National Guard Bureau
currently serves as a valuable advisor to me on the National
Guard's non-federalized homeland defense mission and to the
Secretaries and Chiefs of Staff of the Army and Air Force on
all National Guard activities. Making the Chief of the
National Guard Bureau a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
(JCS) would not improve upon this advisory function or
advance the statutory purpose of the JCS. Rather, it would
introduce inconsistencies among the JCS members and
potentially negatively affect the formation of an integrated
Joint Force by fostering the impression that the National
Guard is a separate service.
There are some aspects of the bill that the Department does
support. In an effort to further improve the National Guard
Bureau's effectiveness, for example, the Department would
support establishing a Vice Chief of the National Guard
Bureau, to serve in the grade of lieutenant general.
The Department has prepared a detailed letter outlining
additional concerns with the legislation which is being sent
to you separately.
Sincerely,
Leon E. Panetta.
____
Department of the Army,
Washington DC, November 7, 2011.
Hon. Jim Webb,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Personnel, Committee on Armed
Services, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your November 2, 2011
letter requesting our views on the ``National Guard
Empowerment and State--National Defense Integration Act of
2011.'' We oppose including the Chief of the National Guard
Bureau as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Our Army is the strength of the Nation because of its
unity, versatility, and depth as the Total Army. It is
absolutely vital that we maintain One Army in today's
uncertain and complex strategic environment. We learned this
lesson in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, and together with
the All-Volunteer Force, the Total Army continues to serve
our Nation extremely well during challenging times. With this
context, coupled with 35 years of lessons, we have several
reasons for opposing the CNGB as a member of the JCS.
First, representing only two (Army National Guard and Air
Force National Guard) of seven Reserve Components at the
Joint Chiefs of Staff level creates circumstances that will
contribute to confusion and imbalance for the United States
Army Reserve, the United States Air Force Reserve, the United
States Marine Corps Reserve, the United States Navy Reserve
and the United States Coast Guard Reserve (which are all
adequately represented by their Military Departments), and
challenges interoperability. Seating the Chief of the
National Guard Bureau at the Joint Chiefs of Staff could also
result in over-representation of Army and Air Force concerns.
We realize you are very familiar with the 2006-2007 debate
before the Commission on the National Guard and Reserve on
making the Chief of the National Guard Bureau a member of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff. We firmly believe the Commission's
findings still hold true today: this change ``. . . would run
counter to intra- and inter-service integration and would
reverse progress toward jointness and interoperability. . .
.''
Second, we feel that the proposed legislation will
complicate the central and enduring principle of civilian
control of our nation's military. It is important that the
Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff of the Army have
clear authorities and responsibilities to ensure effective
and efficient employment of the force. Adding the Chief of
the National Guard Bureau as a full voting member of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff will confuse the lines of authority
currently in place.
Third, this legislation could effectively be creating a de
facto separate domestic military Service by elevating the
Chief of the National Guard Bureau to a level equal to the
Chiefs of Staff of the other Services. This could lead to
potentially divided views on global force management,
funding, modernization, RDT&E, training, doctrine and
operational concepts. Currently, any competing priorities are
effectively resolved within the Army with a clear chain of
command, ensuring holistic and efficient management of our
forces.
The integration of the Regular Army, Army National Guard,
and Army Reserve has proven--during the past decade of
conflict and natural disasters--to be unbeatable on the
battlefield and irreplaceable in relief efforts at home and
abroad. Now, more than in any time in our history, we are
truly One Army. We could not have experienced our incredible
operational successes without unity of command within our
Army formations and complete unity of effort with our joint,
civil, interagency and multinational partners.
Finally, as we move forward, our Army needs to remain
unified. Maintaining our National Guard and Reserve as
critical Army components is essential while facing times of
global uncertainty. The Reserve Component forces will
continue to play a critical role in our national security
strategy and the advice of the Chief of the National Guard
Bureau and Chief of the Army Reserve will always be--as they
always have been--extremely valuable and essential within the
context of a Total Army in a balanced Joint Portfolio. The
Army leadership remains committed to the strength of our
Army, which is and will remain the strength of our Nation.
We appreciate your time and thoughtful consideration of
this matter.
Sincerely,
Raymond T. Odierno,
General, United States Army, Chief of Staff.
John M. McHugh,
Secretary of the Army.
____
Department of the Navy,
Chief of Naval Operations,
Washington, DC, November 3, 2011.
Hon. James Webb,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Personnel, Committee on Armed
Forces, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the opportunity to comment
on the matter of including the Chief of the National Guard
Bureau as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS); we
recommend against this initiative. JCS membership would
violate the principle of unity of command, run counter to
integrating the Joint force as laid out in the Goldwater-
Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986, and
would potentially confuse best military advice, as well as,
create an inequity in advocacy.
Making the CNGB a member of the JCS would complicate unity
of command for both the Army and the Air Force. The Chiefs of
Staff of the United States Army and the UnitedStates Air
Force should be held singularly accountable to the Executive
and Legislative Branches of Government for the readiness and
combat effectiveness of their respective service, and for the
welfare of the men, women, and families in their respective
services. Making the CNGB a member of the JCS would create
unhealthy ambiguity in the responsibility for leading the men
and women of the National Guard. After ten years of war, the
Guard and Reserve are more fully integrated with our active
component than ever before. Making the CNGB a member of the
JCS is unnecessary. This recommendation is consistent with
the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves Second
Report to Congress that the CNGB should not be a member of
the JCS.
Unlike the service chiefs, the CNGB does not represent a
branch of service nor is the CNGB responsible for organizing,
manning, training and equipping the National Guard to the
extent of the service chiefs. On matters relating to
federalized forces of the National Guard of the United States
and its subcomponents; the Army National Guard of the United
States and the Air National Guard of the United States, the
Chief of Staff of the Army and the Chief of Staff of the Air
Force are the appropriate advocates to render best military
advice as members of the JCS.
Moreover, making the CNGB a member of the JCS is
inconsistent with the status of the Army and Air National
Guard as reserve components of the Army and Air Force.
Additionally, JCS membership would create an inequity between
the National Guard and its Army, Marine Corps, Navy and Air
Force Reserve counterparts.
We concur with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
that the CNGB's advisory roles under 10 USC 1050(c) are
essential and sufficient. The CNGB serves as the principal
advisor to the Secretary of Defense, through the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on matters involvingnon-
federalized National Guard forces and on other matters as
determined by the Secretary of Defense. In these matters, it
is appropriate for the CNGB to participate in JCS
deliberations. Additionally, we fully support CNGB
participation in JCS deliberations that deal with issues that
affect the National Guard and to provide key insight on
National Guard concerns.
In sum, elevating the CNGB to the JCS risks sending the
message that the National Guard is a separate service, which
runs contrary to its status as an integral part of the United
States Army and United States Air Force.
Your longstanding support of the men and women of the Naval
service is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
J. W. Greenert,
Chief of Naval Operations.
James F. Amos
Commandant of the Marine Corps.
____
United States Air Force,
The Secretary of the Air Force,
Washington, DC, November 2, 2011.
Hon. Jim Webb,
Chairman, Personnel Subcommittee, Committee on Armed
Services, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Webb: Thank you for the opportunity to share
our views concerning the legislative proposal to make the
Chief of the National Guard Bureau a member of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff (JCS).
Over many decades, the U.S. Air Force has made great
strides integrating the active
[[Page S7890]]
and reserve components, creating the world's most lethal air
force. We admire, value and rely upon the contributions our
reserve components make daily as a part of our total force.
We can assure you that the Air National Guard has a seat at
the table and its voice is heard.
The roles, functions, and reporting relationships for the
National Guard Bureau (NGB) are among the most complex in the
Department of Defense (DoD). As you know, the NGB is a joint
activity of DoD and the Chief of the NGB is a principal
advisor to the Secretary of Defense through the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff on matters involving non-
federalized National Guard forces. The Chief of the NGB is
under the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary
of Defense, but the Secretary normally exercises authority,
direction and control through the Secretaries of the Army and
the Air Force for matters pertaining to their
responsibilities. The Office of the Director, Air National
Guard (ANG) is an element of the NGB and supports the Chief
of the NGB in his advisory role.
The Chief of the NGB is the principal advisor to the
Secretaries and Chiefs of Staff of the Army and Air Force for
matters pertaining to their Title 10 responsibilities, and he
implements the Title 10 organize, train and equip direction
of the Secretaries and Chiefs of Staff of the Army and the
Air Force as they pertain to the National Guard. The ANG of
the United States is a reserve component of the United States
Air Force and, together with the Air Force Reserve and the
Active Duty components of the Air Force, is a fully
integrated element of the total forces that the Secretary and
Chief of Staff provide to the Combatant Commanders. As the
senior leadership of the Air Force, we are responsible for
ensuring ANG requirements for capabilities and functions are
fully considered in DoD's Planning, Programming, Budgeting
and Execution System and policy making processes. With that,
the Director, ANG and his representatives participate without
limitation in the corporate Air Force decision making
process.
One of the continuing challenges we face lies in the dual
nature of Title 10 and Title 32 relationships. Specifically,
for our Total Force development and employment to remain
effective and efficient in all aspects of Air Force
operations, unified Title 10 leadership is paramount. As
recognized in the congressionally mandated Charter for the
National Guard Bureau, the Secretaries of the Army and the
Air Force exercise authority, direction, and control over the
NGB on matters pertaining to the respective Secretary's
responsibilities in law or DoD policy, except as otherwise
directed by the Secretary of Defense. This is essential for
them to meet their responsibilities to the nation, and to
integrate all components of their respective Services. The
legislation passed by the House and proposed by the Senate to
make the Chief of the NGB a member of the JCS would add
further complexity to Title 10 relationships, confusing the
lines of authority and representation already in place for
Chiefs of Staff of the Army and Air Force to meet their JCS
responsibilities.
For these reasons, we strongly encourage you not to proceed
with designating the Chief of the NGB as a member of the JCS.
We believe that the current advisory role established under
10 USC 10502 continues to be both important and sufficient
for advocacy of the National Guard's non-federal needs and
missions. The Chief of the NGB will continue to have a strong
voice and is an essential partner for the Secretary of
Defense, Service Secretaries, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
but he should not be put in a Title 10 position independent
of Service leadership.
In summary, the Title 10 roles and requirements of the Air
National Guard are appropriately addressed in law, in the
Charter of the National Guard Bureau, and within the U.S. Air
Force. Consistent with the unity of effort embodied in our
Total Force approach, military advice in all matters
concerning the U.S. Air Force should come from the Chief of
Staff. In its Title 10 context, the National Guard Bureau
(including its Army and Air elements), is not a separate
service and should not be included as such within the
statutory membership of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
We support the proposal to establish a Vice Chief of the
National Guard Bureau.
Thank you for your valued and continued strong support of
the U.S. Air Force. Similar letters have been sent to Senator
Levin and Senator McCain.
Sincerely,
Michael B. Donley,
Secretary of the Air Force.
Norton A. Schwartz,
General, USAF, Chief of Staff.
Mr. WEBB. The administration also opposes this amendment. Senator
Graham mentioned during the committee hearing that candidate Obama, at
a National Guard Association convention, expressed his support for this
idea. But President Obama has yet to offer his support for this idea.
In fact, the Secretary of Defense, as I mentioned, has stated his
strong opposition. If the President is inclined to support this idea,
perhaps he should clarify that for us.
The Chief of the National Guard Bureau already has extraordinary
access at the table. There have been some questions about bringing the
National Guard to the table. He has extraordinary access at the table.
He, in fact, is the only chief of any department in the Pentagon who
does not have to report to a Service Secretary. He reports to the
Secretary of Defense right now.
The other Reserve components report through Service Secretaries--the
Army Reserve, as opposed to the Army Guard; the Air Force Reserve, the
Navy Reserve, the Marine Corps Reserve, and the Coast Guard Reserve,
through the Coast Guard process.
They are all represented at the table in the Joint Chiefs without
having to be members of the Joint Chiefs.
I remind my colleagues that what we are proposing here is statutorily
doable if this body wishes to do it. But it is going to be
bureaucratically awkward in the Pentagon if it were to occur. You are
going to put into position on the Joint Chiefs of Staff an individual
who is not a service chief.
During the committee hearing, Senator Graham and others mentioned an
article I had written in 1972 in the Marine Corps Gazette calling for
the Commandant of the Marine Corps to become a full member of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff. I am actually quite flattered that someone would
recall an article I wrote 39 years ago when I was a 25-year-old Marine
Corps captain. But the point of the article actually is the reverse of
what we are talking about today. The point of that article was that the
Marine Corps is a separate service--a completely separate service. The
Marine Corps wears a separate uniform than the Navy. The Marine Corps
was being represented on the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the same way as,
say, naval aviation. This is not true with the National Guard. The Air
National Guard wears the uniform of the U.S. Air Force. When they are
mobilized, they are a part of the Air Force. The Army National Guard
wears the uniform of the U.S. Army. When they are brought into Federal
service, they are wearing the same uniform.
We made a lot of this when I was Assistant Secretary for Reserve
Affairs--talking about one Army, one Air Force. You cannot tell the
difference when their units are called up and they are put together.
So what are we doing when we say there should be a position on the
Joint Chiefs of Staff for an individual who is not a service chief?
What does that say, for instance--let's think about this--about Special
Operations Command? The Special Operations Command--a lot of people are
writing about it right now because of the activities they have been
doing over the past 10 years and the fact that they have pretty well
quintupled the people on the ground. The Special Operations Command is
not a separate service. People are saying and writing that they act as
a separate service, but they are made up of members of the other
services. They are put together by the CINC, and they are fed by the
service chiefs based on policies developed at the Joint Chiefs of
Staff.
In 1986, going into 1987, when I was Assistant Secretary of Defense,
there was a constitutional confrontation that occurred when a lot of
Governors in the United States were being pressured by political groups
that did not support the policy of the Reagan administration in Central
America. What they started doing was lobbying the Governors of the
different States in their role as commander of the militia--the
National Guard--saying that the Governors should not be sending
National Guard troops, or their militia, into Central America. At one
point, Secretary Weinberger turned around to me and said that we have
40 percent of the National Guard in the United States potentially
nondeployable to Central America because the Governors in States such
as California and Ohio said they weren't going to send their National
Guard troops to Central America. We had a long and divisive argument
over this. It took place for almost a year.
Finally, we worked with Sonny Montgomery, who was ``Mr. National
Guard'' in the House of Representatives, for whom I had worked years
before. We got a piece of legislation that said the Governors cannot do
that; that the Governor, even though he or she is commander of the
militia, cannot stop deployments when the Pentagon decides they should
deploy. This went all
[[Page S7891]]
the way to the Supreme Court. The National Guard lost. We clarified, in
that Supreme Court decision, the supremacy of the Army clause of the
Constitution over the militia clause of the Constitution--basically,
that the needs of the Army, the needs of the U.S. military, active-duty
military, when calling up these units, superseded the desires of a
Governor.
I would say that that principle still would be in effect today and
still should be recognized in the way the National Guard is fed into
our active-duty Army units and Air Force units when they are being
deployed. And they are well represented on the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff emphasized this, and every
one of them discussed the confusion and the potential inequality among
other reserve components if this amendment were to succeed.
I have enormous respect for Senator Leahy. I consider him to be a
great friend. I know he is not particularly happy with the statement I
am making right now. I hope people will take a hard look at the
amendment I am offering, which says let's take a timeout and look
specifically at the effects that this positioning of a chief of guard
as a member of the Joint Chiefs would have on the principles of
civilian control, accountability, and of someone who is not subject to
the oversight of a confirmed secretary of the military department, and
a number of other issues.
With that, on the remainder of the bill I express my strong support
and my respect and admiration for Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, and
the other members of the committee.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Economy
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I listened to part of what Senator Reid
had to say as we opened the Senate today. I was struck by the fact that
so many people are unemployed and our economy is still barely growing,
that there probably is not any firm objection to trying to alleviate
some of the pain by continuing a process where we lessen the tax burden
through a decline in the Social Security tax. I don't think that is
going to be the issue with many Senators.
The question is, do we do that by raising taxes on other people or by
getting rid of waste. I had an interesting phone call today with
somebody I trust and have been talking to for 3 years, who actually
predicted everything that has happened so far. He predicted what is
going to happen in Europe, and he predicted the fact that ultimately
there will be default in Europe on government bonds. There is no way
they grow themselves out of it or no way we loan them enough money to
buy them enough time to get out of it. The only way is to trim their
spending, which they should have started 2\1/2\ or 3 years ago.
The same lesson applies to us. I think some things that are factual
ought to be brought up. We had, over this past week, the inability of
the committee to come to an agreement on $1.2 trillion. Therefore,
there is going to be a sequestration. The interesting thing, on the way
to the farm, is that when you have the sequestration carried out, there
will actually be no decrease in spending in the Federal Government.
This is the important thing I want the American people to hear. They
think we are cutting spending. Defense will rise 16 percent with
sequestration; nondefense discretionary will rise 6 percent; Medicare
will still rise 71 percent; and net interest will rise 160 percent with
the sequestration. So it is dishonest--to put it mildly--to say that we
are cutting anything in Washington. And there begs the problem.
The problem is that the political elite in this country are failing
to make the adjustments we have to make or we are going to end up like
Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy, and ultimately France. We have to do
that. The sooner we do it the less pain we are going to have. The first
thing we ought to do is be honest with the American people. Nobody has
done anything in Washington yet to cut any spending, because it is
still going to rise in discretionary, defense, Medicare, Medicaid,
Social Security, and interest. It is still going to rise. So we have to
go back to the fundamental problem.
What President Obama is proposing costs about $240 billion for next
year. I think he would get great support from many of us if he said I
want to do this to help people out there, and I want to do it by
getting rid of some of the waste, fraud, abuse, and duplication we
have. I would be the first to help him. But that is not what is going
to be proposed. Instead of playing the political game, why don't we
solve the problem?
We had a GAO report that came out in March that showed massive
duplication throughout the Federal Government--massive. My estimate is
close to $200 billion a year. That is not theirs, that is mine. But at
a minimum, $100 billion a year could be saved by consolidating programs
and eliminating duplication. We have not done anything or made any
attempt to do that. Senator Warner and I offered an amendment to
eliminate $5 billion of it. The bill it was riding on was withdrawn. We
haven't had an opportunity in all the bills that came before to offer
an amendment to eliminate duplication. Before we ask anybody to pay
more taxes to offset the taxes we are going to decrease for the
businesses under $50 million, and for the decline in the payment of
Social Security tax of 3.1 percent for business and 2 percent for the
individual, we ought to get our house in order first. We are doing
exactly what the European countries refuse to do.
Now we hear over the weekend that we are about to participate,
through the IMF, in socializing the debt of Europe, of which we are
required, through the IMF, to absorb 26 percent of the cost. We are not
going to let that happen, because what we are going to do is exactly
the same thing we are doing in the cities--delaying the onset of the
time to make the hard choices.
Here is the growth curve on this chart. In the red is sequestration.
The blue line is without sequestration. Spending is still going up. We
are going to be at a $5.4 trillion annual budget in 2021, 9 years from
now. No spending has been cut. We need to quit lying to the American
people about what we are doing. A 9-percent approval rating is well
earned as long as we are dishonest with the American people about what
we are actually doing. They understand the problem. We are broke.
If you don't think that is the case, look at this chart. Medicare is
broke, no question about it. Medicaid is broke. The census is broke.
Fannie and Freddie are broke. Now FHA has 0.2 percent of the capital
they need when they have a minimum statutory requirement of 3 percent.
FHA is broke. Social Security is broke. There is $2.6 trillion in the
trust fund. We put $105 billion from the Treasury in to offset what we
did last year. Now we are going to pay for it twice because there was
no decrease in the IOU. For that $105 billion, our children and
grandchildren will pay back $210 billion. With the new program, they
are going to pay back $280 billion. The U.S. Post Office is dead broke.
We won't even pass a bill that allows it to be fixed. We just delay the
time of its demise. Cash for Clunkers was broke. The highway trust fund
was broke. We are passing bills for the highway trust fund, which is
$13 billion short. We don't know where the money will come from because
the trust fund is broke. Government-run health care--we don't know, but
it is likely to be broke before it starts.
How do we solve the problem?
Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield on the issue of the post office?
Mr. COBURN. Yes.
Mr. McCAIN. Isn't it kind of a symptom of the disease we suffer from
here where we would not even agree to legislation that cuts mail
delivery from 6 days to 5 days, which is the recommendation of the
Postmaster General?
Mr. COBURN. Yes, and the recommendation of the President of the
United States. What about duplication? Is there not someplace we can
find the $240 billion that President Obama wants to put into the
economy for helping those of the middle and lower income levels make it
through this tough time? Sure there is.
We have 100-plus surface transportation programs that can be
consolidated into about 20 programs. We have
[[Page S7892]]
82 Federal teacher quality programs. Not one has the metric on it, and
we don't know if they work. Economic development programs--we have 88.
Transportation assistance programs, outside surface transportation--we
have 80 of those. We have 56 financial literacy programs. We have 47
job-training programs, at $18 billion a year. All but three of those
overlap one another, and not one has a metric to say it works.
Homelessness prevention and assistance--there are 20 separate programs.
There is nothing wrong with that goal, but why do we need 20? Food for
the hungry--we have 18 different programs. Couldn't we do that through
one Federal program? Why do we need to have 18? Disaster response and
preparedness in FEMA has 17 different programs.
We have taken a ``stupid'' pill, and now we sit bankrupt. We are
physically bankrupt--fiscally and physically bankrupt at this moment,
except we just haven't recognized it, and what is happening in Europe
is going to happen to us in less than a year. The price we pay for our
bond interest is going to go up. The price differential between a
German and Italian bond in the last 10 days has risen 270 basis
points--a spread of 270. Germany couldn't even sell all its bonds
Friday.
What is happening? It is a lack of confidence. So we have to restore
confidence, and the way we do that is by actually paying for the good
we need to do by putting forth commonsense solutions for elimination of
programs that are duplicative.
I will finish with just a couple other points, just some ideas.
If you started now, you could put the 2020 census online and save $2
billion. If we increased the paperless transactions at the Treasury
Department, we could save $1 billion. These are per year, by the way--
per year. We need to gradually increase fees for GSE securities.
President Obama has started that, but it needs to be accelerated. Move
the core functions of the Election Assistance Commission to the FEC.
That is $161 million. We could consolidate that. We could do some
commonsense things. We could combine the SEC and the CFTC and save $2.8
billion. We could move the SBA disaster loans to FEMA. You have to go
through FEMA anyway before you ever qualify for one, so why not let
them do it? Why do we have two separate programs? Why do you have to go
through two doors? It would be like getting your license where you
bought the car, but then you had to go somewhere else to get it, and
then you had to go somewhere else. We could eliminate that. The
National Drug Intelligence Center--it doesn't do anything. It is an
earmark we have spent $488 million on in the last 10 years. It does
nothing of concrete value to anybody in the intelligence network, but
it is an earmark gone crazy.
So what do we do? Well, we put together a shopping list that could be
used. You don't have to agree with any of this, but over the next 10
years, if you just agreed with one-third of it, you could find the
third and save $3.3 trillion. That is $85 billion more--if we just did
one-tenth of it this year--than what the President would like to do
with this jobs stimulus program.
None of this is hard. There certainly can be some debate over what we
fund and don't fund in defense, but most of it is common sense. Will
people squeal? Yes. Everybody is going to have to squeal if we are to
get out of the problem we have in this country.
I will conclude with this: I think we ought to continue, until our
economy is back on keel, with a Social Security tax cut, but I think
the only way we should do that is by eliminating some of the $350
billion a year of waste, of duplication, and of fraud in the Federal
Government. And if we can't do that, we shouldn't be here. None of us
should be here.
The fact that the politics of the next election is crippling this
country says we deserve the 9-percent rating the American people are
giving us. All we have to do is change that. What we have to do is grow
a backbone, stand, and say no to people. We have to say it to everyone.
We have to do this. It is for our future and for our kids' future. And
these are the things that are least painful.
Here is what happens if we don't. The very people we say we don't
want to harm by eliminating the multitude of duplication in all these
programs, eliminating all this waste, all these feel-good things that
part of the time accomplish good things, are the very people who are
going to suffer significantly more because of our inaction.
It is time for us to act. It is time for us to do what is necessary
to put our country back in the right direction and on a healthy diet of
fiscal prudence, smart tax policy, and get out of the rut we are in.
That requires leadership--and not just by the President but by all of
us.
It means you have to take some hits. When I put ``Back in Black''
out, I got some terribly nasty letters from all sorts of people. I
understand. They are getting something, and some of that is put at
risk, so therefore you can't represent them. But everybody is going to
have to give, and if everybody doesn't give, we won't have a country
left. That is what is coming--default. We are broke now; we just are
not in the reality of it. But what is coming is default of American
bonds if we do not act now. It can't wait 2 years. It can't wait for
the next Presidential election. We have to do it now.
With that, I yield the floor.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, here is where we are: With the current UC
that we are operating under, debate is in order this afternoon, and we
are urging that our colleagues who have amendments pending to come and
debate those amendments. This is an opportunity for them to do so, and
this opportunity is not going to last for very long because we have to
get this bill passed.
So I would urge--and I know my good friend from Arizona would join
me--colleagues who have amendments, whether they are pending or not, we
are not going to be able to have any additional amendments added to the
pending list by unanimous consent because we already have something
like 100 pending amendments. It is just more than we are going to be
able to handle to add any more, and it may be more than we could handle
to deal with the ones that are already pending.
But I urge colleagues--otherwise, tomorrow we are going to be hearing
from colleagues: Gee whiz, we want to offer our amendment or we want to
debate that amendment, and there won't be time before that cloture vote
on Wednesday--we are not going to have more than this week for this
bill. We have been informed by the majority leader he wants to finish
this bill by Thursday.
So I strongly urge our colleagues to come and use this opportunity to
debate their amendments. It will increase the chances that we will be
able to get to their amendments for a vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a
colloquy with the distinguished chairman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Isn't it true, I would ask the chairman, that we went on
this bill last Thursday and that we spent a good part of Thursday on
this legislation? Then on Friday, you and I and a few others came in on
Friday and had further debate and discussion of amendments; and then we
came in, I believe, around 1:00 today and enjoined, in fact pleaded,
with our colleagues to come and discuss their amendments they have
pending? I understand there are over 100 amendments pending. So it does
ring a bit hollow if some of our colleagues may say they didn't have
time to debate the amendments that are pending.
So I would say to my colleagues, I believe--and have stated
endlessly--this piece of legislation, which has to do with the Nation's
security, which has been passed by the Congress of the United States
for over 50 years now, for over a half century, without interruption,
that we are doing a disservice to the men and women in the military if
we don't debate these amendments, if we don't discuss the important
issues of national security that are embodied in this legislation.
[[Page S7893]]
So I would ask my friend, the distinguished chairman, after these
thousands of hours of work, and now on our fourth day of consideration
of this bill, that maybe it might be appropriate for us to take
measures to expedite the process. Again, I urge our colleagues who have
pending amendments to come down and debate and discuss them so that we
can line up votes because there are so many pending amendments it is
going to require a significant number of votes as well.
Mr. LEVIN. I surely concur with my colleague that we have been here
now--I think this is the fourth day. The days last week which the
Senator referred to are different than my own memory. I think they were
earlier in the week than the Senator referred to. But, nonetheless, the
point is the same. I believe we were here either Tuesday or Wednesday,
but there were 2 days before we left for Thanksgiving that we were
here. The Senator's point is well taken.
The floor was open to debate. People offered amendments. They had an
opportunity to make them pending. Now we have a huge number of those
amendments pending, and now it is time to start disposing of
amendments. Unless our colleagues come to the floor to do that, we are
not going to be able to get through this bill, and the leader will not
continue debate or allow us to continue to debate this bill beyond
Thursday. We know that is the case because we know how much pending
legislation there is that the majority leader needs to get through.
So I can only, again, join the Senator from Arizona in a joint plea
that our colleagues who have amendments come and debate those
amendments. Hopefully, we can get to votes on those amendments even yet
today after the vote on the judge at 5:30 or so.
Mr. McCAIN. So my colleagues should not object to short time
agreements for debate, final debate before we vote on some of these
amendments.
Mr. LEVIN. I hope, when the time comes, colleagues who come to the
floor understand that unless they agree to short time agreements, there
is no way we will be able to get this bill done even if their
amendments pass. It will not do anyone any good to have long debate on
amendments when people finally come to debate those amendments, even if
the amendments pass, because there will not be an opportunity to get
the bill itself passed. That is very true.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from Delaware, Mr. Coons--the Presiding Officer--be added as a
cosponsor of Senate amendment No. 1155 to the pending bill, S. 1867.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President, for cosponsoring the
amendment.
Earlier today the chairman and the ranking minority member of the
Senate Armed Services Committee came to the Senate floor and asked for
Members to come forth with their amendments. I want to speak on my
amendments as well as the underlying bill. But I want to begin by
commending Senator Levin and Senator McCain for their superior work on
this very important piece of legislation.
For this reason I rise in support of the fiscal year 2012 National
Defense Authorization Act. This bill represents a bipartisan commitment
to ensuring that our brave men and women in uniform have the support
they require to execute our Nation's military strategy and to defend
freedom around the globe. The legislation will improve the operation of
the Department of Defense, it will strengthen congressional oversight
of the Department, and it makes fiscally responsible but very difficult
choices in order to meet this year's budget caps. As a member of the
Senate Armed Services Committee, I urge all of my colleagues to support
this important bill.
I am particularly pleased that this bill fully authorizes the Navy's
budget request for shipbuilding. While shipbuilding accounts for fewer
than $1 out of every $10 of the Navy's budget, it is a critical
component to the strength of our national defense.
The Chief of Naval Operations has testified that a fleet of 400 ships
would actually be required to meet the unconstrained demands of the
combatant commanders. Due to budget constraints, however, the Navy aims
for a fleet that equals 313 ships in the future, but today the Navy has
only 285 ships. The DDG-1000 program, the DDG-51 restart, the Virginia
Class submarine, and other ships in the shipbuilding budget will help
to close the troubling gap between the requirements of the combatant
commanders and the number of ships the Navy actually has.
I am particularly proud that the skilled workers of Bath Iron Works
in my State are playing such a critical role in building the ships our
Navy requires. Bath's excellent performance of delivering ships on time
and on budget or under budget to the Navy continues. This year BIW
delivered the USS Spruance to the Navy where the destroyer will serve
in the Pacific fleet. In addition, BIW has completed more than 60
percent of the construction of the very first DDG-1000. This is a
destroyer for which the Navy laid the keel for the ship 2 weeks ago.
So, Mr. President, consider the fact that 60 percent of the
construction had been completed before the keel laying ceremony; this
is a feat which is all that much more impressive when we consider that
the rework rate for ship construction--and this ship is the first in
its class of ships--has been less than 1 percent. That is an
extraordinary record and a tribute to the high-quality work performed
by the men and women of Bath Iron Works.
Last week the President made clear that the United States will not
shrink from its role in Southeast Asia and the Pacific, two regions
where forward presence and persistence depend on the ships of the U.S.
Navy. At a time when the Chinese fleet is larger than our own and is
expanding, now is certainly the time to reinvigorate rather than weaken
our shipbuilding industrial base to build ships that are capable of
operating in anti-access and area-denial environments.
In recent weeks Secretary of Defense Panetta has warned about the
negative effect of sequestration on the fragile shipbuilding industrial
base and his concern that under this procedure, which would involve
automatic cuts that disproportionately fall on the Department of
Defense, the Navy could shrink to the smallest force since 1915.
Unfortunately, the Navy fleet is already the smallest that it has been
since 1916 despite the escalating threats that we face.
So I want to thank Chairman Levin, Ranking Minority Member McCain,
and the chairman and ranking member of the Seapower Subcommittee as
well for recognizing the importance of fully authorizing the
President's request for shipbuilding.
This legislation also includes important acquisition reforms to
ensure that taxpayers receive the best value for every dollar
authorized in this bill. One provision requires the military services
to determine if they can save money by performing service-life
extension programs for nontactical vehicles and equipment rather than
purchasing new gear.
The committee report also seeks to save taxpayer dollars by directing
the Air Force to evaluate the annual fuel costs that would be incurred
at each candidate base before the Air Force decides where to assign new
aircraft, such as the KC-46A tanker.
In addition to providing better value to the taxpayer, the government
procurement process should be fair, open, and entirely free from
politics. I would hope that is the goal on which every Member of the
Senate could agree. Last spring, however, the administration was
considering a draft Executive order requiring Federal agencies and
departments to collect information about campaign contributions and
political expenditures of bidders before awarding any Federal contract.
I would suggest to my colleagues that is the antithesis of sound
procurement practices.
For the administration to even consider a change that would inject
politics into the procurement process goes
[[Page S7894]]
in entirely the wrong direction. Such a move would create the
perception that political support or opposition is somehow a
consideration in selecting the winners and losers among businesses
vying for Federal contracts.
To ensure that contracts are kept out of the procurement process, an
amendment that I offered with Senators Portman and Brown was adopted by
the committee with the wholehearted support of the chairman and ranking
member, and I would note that it was adopted without opposition. Our
amendment specifically prohibits the Department of Defense from
collecting information about political contributions made by companies
seeking to conduct business with the Federal Government.
Think what a terrible position that would put contracting officers
in. Right now they are just collecting information about the ability of
a contractor--or a would-be contractor--to perform on the contract,
information about the price they are bidding, and information about
past performance. What kind of signal would it send to contracting
officers if all of a sudden they are required to collect information
about political contributions and expenditures? That would muddy the
procurement process. It would imply that somehow political
contributions are supposed to be considered in the contract award
process when exactly the opposite must be the case.
Another area of particular concern to me is ensuring that our service
men and women receive the health care they deserve, particularly as it
relates to mental and behavioral health. While the rate of Active-Duty
suicides did drop last year, it is very sad to know that almost twice
as many Guard members and reservists committed suicide in 2010 compared
to 2009. This is a tragedy that the chiefs of the military services,
the Secretary of Defense, and the members of our committee are taking
very seriously. We don't know enough about the factors why, but we do
know that we need to provide better access to counseling and other
services to our service men and women, to our reservists, to our Guard
members, and to our veterans.
Unfortunately, the Department of Defense has had limited ability to
allow its own civilian and contracted mental health professionals in
one State to provide care to a patient in a different State. That is
the result of complicated State licensing laws with which I am very
familiar, having overseen the licensing of mental health professionals
for 5 years in my career.
The result is that many in our military, particularly Guard members
and Reserve members who live in rural areas where there is a shortage
anyway of mental health professionals, must travel long distances to
access care.
So the result is that, in many cases, they simply don't access care
at all and don't receive the care, the counseling, or the assistance
they need and deserve.
This bill includes the provision included at the request of Senator
Begich, Senator Brown, and myself to expand access to mental health
care providers for those individuals who have served. This provision--
our amendment--will allow mental health care professionals who have
been qualified by the Department of Defense to serve members of the
Armed Forces and our veterans using ``telehealth''--a capability the
Army in particular has sought and believes would be very useful so
services can be provided via videoconference, for example, to members
who may be far away from the actual mental health professional.
The bill also includes provisions to increase protections for
servicemembers who are victims of sexual assault. One in six women will
be a victim of a sexual assault in her lifetime. Yet in the military,
that terrible statistic is even higher--much higher, I regret to say.
As many as one in three women leaving military service report they have
experienced some form of sexual trauma.
The provisions that were included in the bill at the request of all
the women of the Senate Armed Services Committee as well as Senators
Brown and Begich were based upon legislation Senator Kerry and I
introduced to implement some of the overdue recommendations of the 2009
Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services.
Of the 91 recommendations made by this task force, only 26 have been
fully implemented by the Pentagon as of May--only 26 of the 91
recommendations. There are a couple of these recommendations that are
particularly important and have been included in the bill. These
recommendations include providing victims with access to legal counsel
and ensuring that each military unit has an adequate number of
trained--and I emphasize the word ``trained''--victim advocates and
sexual assault response coordinators.
The bill also requires the Department of Defense and the VA to
implement a comprehensive process to preserve medical records and
evidence related to sexual assaults. This has been a real problem. This
process will protect victims' access to VA benefits and will help
support the prosecution of their offenders. Finally, in this area, the
bill modifies the Uniform Code of Military Justice as requested by the
Judge Advocate Generals to improve the likelihood of prosecution of
sexual offenders in the military.
While this bill does much to provide for our servicemembers and
improve the processes of the Department of Defense, I believe we can
further strengthen this bill, and I have offered three amendments with
that goal in mind. First, I have introduced amendment No. 1180 with
Senators Shaheen and Casey to address the serious threat posed to the
American people by the missing portable anti-aircraft missiles from
Libya. Our amendment requires an urgent intelligence assessment of the
threat these missiles pose to the American people and our allies and it
requires the President to develop and implement a comprehensive
strategy to mitigate this threat.
Former Libyan Dictator Colonel Qadhafi acquired more than 18,000 of
these portable anti-aircraft missiles--one of the largest stockpiles in
the world. Make no mistake, no one has an accurate accounting of where
all these missiles have gone or where they are now. While the
administration has sent teams to inspect and disable these missiles,
where they know they exist, there is no comprehensive strategy in place
despite very disturbing reports of Libyan militias refusing to disarm
themselves and of terrorist groups seeking these weapons.
Recently, Senator McCain and I had the opportunity at the World
Economic Forum in Jordan to meet with the then-Acting Prime Minister of
the Libyan Transitional National Council, and we asked him specifically
about the issue of the Libyan militias all over the country. He was
very forthright in saying he had been unable to bring them under a
uniform control--a real issue. Unfortunately, he decided he needed to
resign, in part due to that issue. The United States simply must make
an accounting for these dangerous weapons that can be aimed to take
down a commercial aircraft. This must be a priority in Libya and
throughout the region. I appreciate the support Chairman Levin and
Senator McCain have expressed for this amendment as well as the helpful
suggestions from Senator Kerry, Senator Lugar, and the Senate Select
Intelligence Committee.
I have also offered an amendment No. 1155 to allow physical and
occupational therapists to enroll in the Armed Forces Health
Professionals Scholarship Program. This program provides tuition
assistance to critical health care professionals in exchange for
service as a commissioned medical officer.
Unfortunately, while the need for physical therapists has grown
during the last 10 years of war, neither the Department of Defense nor
the military services have conducted a separate analysis of the current
or future DOD workforce requirements for occupational and physical
therapists, even though such an analysis was required by last year's
Defense authorization bill.
My amendment would allow the military services to extend the same
kind of educational benefits to physical and occupational therapists
that are already afforded to physicians, dentists, physician
assistants, and even veterinarians.
Physical and occupational therapists at the military's major medical
centers serve approximately 600 wounded warriors every day on their
road to recovery. More than 32,000 servicemembers have been wounded in
Iraq and Afghanistan, including many who have suffered very serious
injuries and have
[[Page S7895]]
had to have amputations, for example. Those injuries require
significant physical therapy.
The idea for this amendment came directly from a visit I had with a
wounded marine from Maine at Bethesda earlier this month. He was
severely wounded by an IED in Afghanistan. He lost part of one leg and
his other leg has a lot of shrapnel wounds. Both of his arms were
wounded, and he has a traumatic brain injury as well. In short, he has
very serious wounds that are going to require a very lengthy recovery
period. But he has recently been moved into wonderful accommodations--
his own apartment at Bethesda. His spirits are amazingly strong and
upbeat.
But when I asked him if he had any concerns, he said while he praised
the care he was receiving, there was a severe shortage of physical
therapists and other trained clinical personnel to help him in what is
going to be a very long recovery. He is expected to be at Bethesda for
another 9 months. It troubles me that he believes there are not a
sufficient number of physical therapists to help him and the other
wounded warriors who are hospitalized at Bethesda.
While the Department of Defense reports that overall it does not face
a shortage in these professions, both the Air Force and the Navy report
shortages in physical therapists, physical therapy technicians, and
occupational therapists. One out of every four physical therapist
positions in the Active-Duty Navy is currently unfilled. So including
these medical professions in this existing educational program would
help meet this need.
I wish to point out, we are not authorizing additional or new
funding. However, this is an important insurance policy against a
shortfall of these medical professionals that will help the Navy and
the Air Force fill vacancies. After all, it is these talented and
committed professionals who are helping our wounded warriors return to
living full and independent lives.
Finally, I have offered amendment No. 1158, a bipartisan amendment
with Senators Begich, Manchin, and Chambliss, regarding the prohibition
on the transfer of U.S.-held detainees to a country that has a
confirmed case of a released individual who has returned to the fight.
This is so needed.
I note this provision was permanent in the detainee amendment that
was offered by our chairman and ranking member that was adopted
overwhelmingly by the Senate Armed Services Committee during our June
markup. Nevertheless, this provision was reduced to a temporary 1-year
restriction in the current version of the bill in response to concerns
from the administration.
I wish to point out that my amendment would only make permanent the
prohibition on the transfer of American-held detainees to a country
that has a confirmed case of recidivism. It does not change any of the
other transfer provisions in section 1033 of the bill.
Let me make clear that I support the hard work Chairman Levin and
Senator McCain have done to craft a permanent detainee policy that has
a great deal of support on a bipartisan basis. While there may be
genuine disagreement regarding other aspects of the detainee policy
provided for in this bill, the amendment I put forth permanently
establishing the commonsense policy that we will not return detainees
to countries where they are returning to the battlefield should not be
an issue that divides this body. In spite of the spirited and lengthy
debate in committee on detainee policy, this particular provision in my
amendment was not the subject of controversy.
Let me give a little more background on why it is necessary. In
September, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified
that the recidivism rate of transferred Guantanamo detainees continues
to increase. Twenty-seven percent of transferred detainees--released
from Guantanamo to another country is what I am talking about--up from
25 percent last year, are believed to have rejoined the fight, rejoined
the cause of terrorism.
Of the 599 detainees who have been released from Guantanamo, there
are 161 individuals confirmed or suspected of re-engaging in terrorist
or insurgent activities. Half of those cases have been confirmed by the
intelligence community, which is an increase of 5 percent of confirmed
cases from March 2009 to October 2010. I believe it is likely, as
further intelligence is developed, that the rest will be confirmed--
those suspected cases are likely to be confirmed as well.
Former detainees who were previously mid-level enemy combatants are
not simply returning to be another fighter armed with a rifle, although
that, too, is clearly unacceptable. According to Michael Vickers, the
Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, former detainees are
advancing in the leadership ranks of al-Qaida and its affiliates.
For example, Said al-Shihri was released from Guantanamo in 2007 to
Saudi Arabia. He participated in a so-called rehabilitation program but
then traveled to Yemen. Within 2 years of his transfer, he was involved
in planning an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Yemen in September of
2009. He also became a deputy in al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, the
terrorist group responsible for the attempted Christmas Day bombing in
2009 and the attempted package bombs last year. In fact, AQAP is
considered by most intelligence analysts as the entity posing the most
danger to our homeland.
There are other cases as well. There is a case where one of the
detainees who was released to Afghanistan in 2007 told American
officials, prior to his transfer:
I [just] want to go back home and join my family and work
in my land and help my family.
Instead, after Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul was released by the Afghan
Government in 2008, he went back to fighting. Press reports indicate
this former detainee was promoted as a top deputy in the Taliban and
put in charge of operations against U.S. and Afghan forces in southern
Afghanistan in 2009. In fact, Newsweek reported that roadside bomb
teams under his direction have caused more than half of NATO's 160
deaths in Afghanistan in the first 5 months of this year.
Muhammad al-Awfi was also released from Guantanamo to Saudi Arabia in
2007. After leaving a rehabilitation program in 2008, he too fled to
Yemen. Not long after, he appeared in a video announcing the formation
of AQAP. There are other examples as well--example after example after
example--of detainees who have been released from Guantanamo and who
have returned to the fight.
We need a permanent provision to deal with the recidivism threat. As
hopeful as I am that the national defense authorization bill will be
passed each and every year--and there is a great record of the Armed
Services Committee in that regard--there is no guarantee that
legislation will be passed by the Congress and signed into law by the
President. In fact, we are already 3 months into this fiscal year, and
we are weeks from having a Defense authorization bill signed into law,
despite the heroic efforts of the leaders of the Armed Services
Committee.
Ten years after these wars began, it is clear when we transfer
detainees to some countries they may well rejoin the fight against our
country and our allies. It is time for Congress to establish a
permanent policy in the Defense authorization bill that we will not
transfer detainees to countries where there have been confirmed cases
of released detainees returning to the fight. I urge my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle to do exactly that by supporting this
bipartisan amendment.
Finally, the people of Maine have a proud history of contributing to
the defense of our country. Members of the Maine National Guard have
served in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as Active-Duty soldiers,
marines, airmen, and sailors from our State. The Air Guard unit in
Bangor continues to perform critical refueling missions for aircraft
headed overseas, as it has done since 9/11/2001. Many of the sailors
who are deployed serve on 1 of the 101 ships currently underway that
were built at Bath Iron Works or on submarines repaired, overhauled,
and refueled at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, ME.
From the Maine Military Authority and the Defense Finance and
Accounting Service Center in Limestone to the Pratt & Whitney plant in
North Berwick, ME, from cutting-edge composite and renewable energy
research at the University of Maine to the innovative high-tech firms
throughout our State,
[[Page S7896]]
Mainers have faithfully supported our national defense with ingenuity,
innovation, and superior craftsmanship.
The investments authorized in this bill support these efforts in
Maine and other States throughout the country, and they will continue
to ensure that our extraordinary military remains the best trained and
the best equipped in the world.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, before the Senator from Maine leaves the
floor, I wish to thank her for the extraordinary contribution she makes
to our committee as well as to the Senate. She and I have worked long
together, and we work extremely well together. We have seen a lot of
things that were able to get passed because of people working
together--a lot of measures that can happen because people are willing
to set aside partisanship--and she has been one of the leaders in
getting things done in this body and in the committee. I wish to thank
her and tell her how grateful a chairman I am for her contribution.
We are working hard on the amendments she has offered. They are being
worked on--last week and this week--and we will have something to
report to her, I hope, in the next few hours.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I wish to thank the committee chairman
for his extremely generous remarks. It has been a great pleasure to
serve with him on the Armed Services Committee, and I very much
appreciate his outstanding leadership.
Senator Levin and I actually go way back to when I was a staffer on
the Governmental Affairs Committee. I was a staff director of a
subcommittee on which he was the ranking member and chairman. It went
back and forth with Senator Cohen. It has been a great honor and
pleasure to serve as his colleague during these past 15 years. So I
appreciate his comments.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if I may add one thing; that is, she has
also been my chairman, as well as the ranking member, on the Homeland
Security Committee. So we have an awful lot of history together. I am
glad she did not mention how many years it is we have been working
together because that dates us a little bit. But we do go back a long
way and have tremendous confidence in each other, as I do in her.
I thank the Chair.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, am I correct that we are on the Defense
authorization bill?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Amendment No. 1072
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, one of the amendments that have been
pending is the Leahy-Graham National Guard empowerment amendment, which
is amendment No. 1072. I was just discussing with the distinguished
leaders of the Armed Services Committee, Senators Levin and McCain, the
possibility of a time to bring that amendment up for a vote. While we
are in quorum calls anyway, let me talk a little bit about what the
amendment is.
Over the past decade, as we all know, the National Guard has
undergone a profound change--actually, a historic change. Once, it was
a hollow force, considered only a strategic reserve for nightmare
contingencies, but the National Guard has become an operational reserve
that deploys in regular rotation with the Active-Duty Force. As a
matter of policy and reality, Army and Air National Guard troops from
States around the country shoulder their load overseas, but they also
carry a disproportionate share of the domestic response in disaster
relief missions at home, including responding to terrorist events.
Institutional support for the National Guard still lags behind its
operational role.
When I have been on battlefields, whether Iraq, Afghanistan, or
elsewhere, and I have talked to the commanders there, they do not know
the difference between, when looking at soldiers about to deploy, which
one is Guard and which one is regular force because they are deploying
together and expected to do the same job. But, unfortunately, today's
National Guard is a superb 21st-century force trapped inside the 20th-
century Pentagon bureaucracy.
Without raising the profile of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau
in the supreme military advisory body of the Department of Defense, the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, the United States will miss an opportunity to
capitalize on positive changes that began in response to post-9/11
operations tempo. So our amendment makes that change, as well as
several others that will enhance the Guard's effectiveness.
I may sound parochial, but I think of immediately after 9/11. We had
armed F-16s flying guard over New York City around the clock, day after
day. They were from the Vermont Air National Guard, and they maintained
their readiness 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, protecting us because we
did not know what else might come. Well, I think just about every
Senator here could talk about similar types of work the Guard from his
or her State has done.
Now, in this period of flatlining or even declining Pentagon budgets,
the Department of Defense has to increase the role of the National
Guard as an element of the overall force mix. Without the Chief of the
National Guard Bureau on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, among the other
changes made by this amendment, the unique experience of nearly half a
million members of the National Guard will continue to be largely
unknown, and their voices, their interests, and their concerns have
gone mostly unheard. So the change is not only necessary, it is
actually a decade overdue.
This amendment is not just out of the blue. It has 70 cosponsors.
More than two-thirds of the Senate support it. It is an overwhelmingly
bipartisan majority of Senators. It goes across the political spectrum,
and it goes across the States of this Nation. It demonstrates that the
provisions contained in this amendment, all of which empower the
National Guard, should be included in this year's National Defense
Authorization Act.
As I have said, I have been overseas. I know the distinguished
Presiding Officer has. Most of us here have. We have watched our troops
operate, and you cannot tell which troops are in the Guard and which
are Active Duty. Certainly when they are out facing the enemy and
putting their lives on the line, there is not a sign that says: Shoot
at this one because they are Active but not this one because they are
in the Guard. They are all facing the same dangers.
They stand and work side by side. We have to reflect our reality
inside the Pentagon as well as outside of it on the battlefield.
I urge all of my colleagues, cosponsors and nonsponsors alike, to
join me in making sure the Guard finally has a voice commensurate with
its operational role.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I rise today to speak
briefly about the fiscal year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act.
As a member of the Committee on Armed Services and as the ranking
member of the Subcommittee on Airland, I can say that it is one of the
most, if not the most, bipartisan committees in the Senate. As I have
said many times before, we are Americans first, and it is fitting that
the Senate still works that way when it comes to providing the tools
and resources for our men and women serving in uniform. We recently
proved it when we passed the tax credit for unemployed veterans,
something I was proud to sponsor, and was also proud to be at the White
House for the signing ceremony a little over 1 week ago.
[[Page S7897]]
I am proud of this bill as well, which represents a year's worth of
hard work and devotion by Senators Levin and McCain, and all the
committee members and their staffs, for their dedication to putting out
a topnotch bill. I want to also thank Senator Lieberman, chairman of
the Airland Subcommittee, for his committed leadership and effort on
behalf of our military and military families. I have been honored to
work with him and his staff throughout the year.
I believe we have developed thoughtful and informed provisions in our
subcommittee mark which will authorize funding for our military's most
crucial capabilities and resources. Our decisions were informed by a
series of hearings that addressed several critical issues facing our
air and ground forces, including force structure, modernization of
ground forces, tactical aviation, and specifically the F-35 Joint
Strike Fighter Program. In the end, I believe we achieved our goal of
executing the Secretary of Defense's vision to enhance our Nation's
capability to fight the wars we are in today and to address scenarios
we are most likely to face in the future. We are hedging against other
risks and contingencies also.
I am also very proud that this bill includes an important provision
based on legislation I introduced with Senator Kelly Ayotte last
February, which is the No Contracting With the Enemy Act.
I had an opportunity to go in a codel to Pakistan-Afghanistan and met
with a lot of the leaders over there, then-General Petraeus and others,
and had an opportunity to go back as a soldier recently still serving.
Speaking with General Allen and a lot of contracting generals, this by
far is the most important piece of legislation we can file when it
comes to dealing with funding. After speaking with General Petraeus,
General Allen, and all the generals in charge of contracting, I was
shocked that we are actually unable to sever contracts once we
determine, through the new way of paying of cash versus electronic
transfers, that we are actually in some instances contracting with the
enemy which in turn is using those funds against our soldiers. We have
heard many stories of those funds falling into Taliban hands and other
insurgents' hands and used against us. And that, quite frankly, is
unacceptable. Can you imagine that our own troops would be forced to
continue giving money to the enemy because they are unable to terminate
a contract? That makes absolutely no sense. So I was very thankful that
the committee chairs and ranking members recognized that this is a
critical part of the warfighting effort. As you can imagine, others I
noted have found it to be unacceptable as well. So I want to thank
Senator Ayotte for her leadership. Obviously we can fight this
disgusting practice and give our troops the power to void any contracts
when it is discovered that the contract benefits enemies of the United
States. As General Petraeus stated last year: If money is ammunition,
we need to make sure it gets into the right hands. And I couldn't agree
with that statement more.
The committee had to make some tough decisions in light of the very
real fiscal realities we are facing today. It is no secret that our
military is already shouldering a burden unlike in years past, not only
at home but also abroad. In today's fiscal environment in which it is
very tough to get any dollars, our men and women in uniform stood up
and stand up and have identified efficiencies and savings, and they
should be commended, and so I want to do that right now. I want to say
that any consideration of future cuts that place our Nation's
military's readiness in jeopardy should receive very serious scrutiny.
Lastly, I want to say that when the time comes, I look forward to
supporting and debating the amendment offered by the Senators from
South Carolina and Vermont, Graham and Leahy, along with almost 70
other Senators who support this amendment. This would give the Chief of
the National Guard Bureau a seat at the table of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. This could not be more overdue. I think we can all agree that
over the past decade the National Guard has experienced momentous
change in the way it fights, in the way it trains, and in the way it
equips itself, serving alongside their brothers and sisters in arms,
and they deserve the same respect with the Joint Chiefs. As a result,
the Guard today is much different than the Guard I grew up with when I
joined back in 1979. No longer is the Guard considered a strategic
reserve used to address limited and unforeseen emergencies. Rather,
today's Guard serves alongside its active-duty counterparts in Iraq,
Afghanistan, Haiti, and many other strategic locations throughout the
world. It serves as the tip of the spear for homeland defense response
and disaster relief. They are fighting in many areas overseas, and they
are coming home with devastating injuries just like everybody else.
Their families are going through the trauma just like everybody else.
They fought and died in the war on terror, and they represent thousands
of American communities across this great country. I look forward to
supporting this amendment when it comes forth.
That said, now that the bill is before the full Senate, I hope we
will have an opportunity to conduct meaningful debate, not shutting off
debate, not doing cloture before it is time, but allowing us to work as
we did recently when we passed the 3-percent withholding, a bill I
sponsored, and also the HIRE a Hero Veterans Act, which I also
sponsored. Those passed overwhelmingly without any dissenting votes.
I, like my colleagues, have offered several amendments which I feel
are relevant to protecting and providing the tools and resources for
our men and women who are serving. I look forward to working with the
chairman and ranking member to have them considered appropriately.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Amendment No. 1072
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Leahy-
Graham amendment which hopefully we will vote on here soon.
The amendment is pretty simple. It says the Congress has decided, in
its wisdom, to make the Chief of the National Guard Bureau a member of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
In 1947, we reorganized our Defense Department and created the modern
Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs, with a chairman, which
would provide military advice to the Commander in Chief, the President
of the United States. The Chairman is the person responsible for
advising the President, but the Joint Chiefs are made up of the Army,
Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. With this legislation, the Chief of
the National Guard Bureau will become a member--nothing more, nothing
less. It doesn't provide any power to the Chief of the National Guard
Bureau in terms of commanding troops. It doesn't interfere in the
relationship between the active forces, the Guard, or the Reserves. It
simply states that now is the time for the National Guard, the citizen
soldier, to have a voice on the Joint Chiefs.
The reason I believe it is important is after 9/11, everything about
the National Guard and our country's needs has changed. The National
Guard is the front-line soldier/airman when it comes to natural
disasters. When our homeland is hit by natural disaster, they can be
called up federally or at the State level they provide assistance to
our citizens. We have seen the effects of natural disasters. There can
be a lot of loss of life and property. That is a unique duty. In the
last hurricane that came through in the Northeast, the Chief of the
National Guard Bureau said that no one from the White House called him,
other than a mid-level operative, and he never interacted with the
Joint Chiefs at all about the needs and capability of the Guard.
General Dempsey, the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, has invited
General McKinley, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, to be an ad
hoc member. That is great. But I asked him, if he somehow fell out of
favor, could you kick him out of the room, and the answer is, Yes.
I think Congress needs to make a decision about the role of the
citizen soldier. If you believe, as I do, that they are indispensable
on fighting the war on terror, they have some leading missions when it
comes to homeland security post-9/11, their voice needs to be heard.
The active-duty forces need to have the Chief of the National Guard
Bureau in that room advising them
[[Page S7898]]
about the capability and readiness of the National Guard, their dual-
status capabilities, what they can do at the State level and the
Federal level.
I guess I can boil it down to this. To me, it was a national shame
and disgrace to deploy National Guard troops after 9/11 without
adequate body armor or equipment, and this will make it very hard for
that to happen again because the Chief of the National Guard Bureau
will be in the room with his counterparts talking about the needs of
this force. Hopefully, the coordination and collaboration through this
new change will allow the force to be ready, deployable, and we will
never go back to that time period in our history where the Guard and
Reserve were called up without adequate equipment, body armor, ready to
go to war. This is a change that I think makes sense post-9/11. It
doesn't interfere with the day-to-day operations of the military. It
doesn't confer any power on the National Guard they don't already have.
It is just one more voice at the table at a time when I think that
voice needs to be heard. The world has changed. Our Nation's defense
needs have changed post-9/11.
We have 67 cosponsors, and I am very proud of the fact that this is
one of the most bipartisan pieces of legislation I have ever been
involved with. Senator Leahy has been a great partner, my cochairman of
the Guard caucus, and I look forward to having the vote.
Senators McCain and Levin have done a great job managing this bill.
If you have amendments, please work with these two gentlemen. We don't
want this Congress to go down in history as being the first Congress in
51 years that could not pass a Defense authorization bill. We have
enough things going against us already as a Congress. We don't want to
add that to the list. So Senator Leahy and myself are willing to do
this by voice vote, whatever the body wishes.
Senator Reed, my good friend from Rhode Island, has a second-degree
amendment that basically takes our legislation and defeats the purpose
of it. Senator Webb has a second-degree amendment that would substitute
a membership and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs with a reporting
requirement that, quite frankly, misses the mark. Both are fine men.
Senator Webb argued years ago that the Marine Corps needs to be a
member of the Joint Chiefs, and everybody thought the Navy would have
two votes and they fought passionately against it, and it has worked
out pretty well. So all the problems with making the Marine Corps a
member of the Joint Chiefs haven't panned out. Goldwater-Nichols was
fought by everybody except the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs when it was
first introduced. So change comes hard to the Pentagon.
This is a change that I think makes common sense. I would say, after
9/11, our citizen soldiers deserve this recognition. This would be a
great step forward in making sure they are integrated and they never go
to war again unless they are prepared to go. Having that voice day in
and day out in the tank I think will do everybody a lot of good. So I
hope we can vote on this soon. I appreciate Senators McCain and Levin's
leadership on this bill. I think we have a good bill for our men and
women in uniform, and I look forward to bringing this to the floor for
a vote.
To my colleagues who want to amend the bill, I appreciate the
differences that we have but I think the time has come for the National
Guard to be a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with a full voice
and ability to be heard as they have never been heard before. The
reason they need to be heard unlike any other time is that we depend on
them unlike any other time, except maybe the first engagement. When you
look at who has been around the longest, the first shot fired in
creating this Nation was fired by the citizen soldier. Two hundred-
something years later, let's make sure that they are integrated into
our defense infrastructure at the highest levels, because their voice
needs to be heard.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________