[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.

                          ____________________