[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 164 (Monday, November 18, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8077-S8079]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we have something coming up that we are 
going to be talking about this week, and I am a little disturbed 
because I don't know exactly when it is going to be coming up, and I 
don't know how many objections there are going to be. I just know there 
are some people who want to delay, since it is a must-pass bill, the 
National Defense Authorization Act. We have passed it every year for, I 
think, 51 years. We have never failed to pass it. This is not going to 
be the first year that we fail to pass it. But I am hoping our Members 
will recognize how significant this is.
  First of all, as the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, I thank my colleague, the chairman of the committee, Senator 
Levin, for his leadership and for his cooperation, which we enjoyed 
during the committee markup of this bill. We got it through the 
committee in pretty fast order. People realized there are some things 
that had to be taken up on the floor--three very controversial issues. 
Fine. This is where it should be taken up. It will be taken up. There 
will be amendments I will strongly oppose and some I will support. But 
I have always considered the National Defense Authorization Act to be 
the most important piece of legislation Congress considers each year.
  This bill contains crucial authorizations that support our men and 
women in harm's way in Afghanistan and around the world. It supports 
training of our servicemembers and maintenance and modernization of 
their equipment to ensure they are prepared to overwhelm any adversary 
and return home safely to their loved ones. But--and this is a big 
but--it does so only as the reduced defense spending will allow.
  It authorizes research and development efforts that will ensure we 
maintain technological superiority over our enemies and can 
successfully defeat the threats of tomorrow. But, again, it does so 
only--this is different; this has never happened before--when we are 
facing a reduction in our military spending. It is so unacceptably low 
that it has caused our leaders in all core services, which I will read 
in just a moment, to talk about how this is life-threatening.
  But, most importantly, one thing we will continue to do is provide 
for the pay and the benefits of the brave men and women who are in 
harm's way to defend this Nation. In an era increasingly defined by 
partisan gridlock, the NDAA--the National Defense Authorization Act--is 
one of the rare occasions where Members of both parties can come 
together out of a shared commitment to our military men and women. This 
enduring commitment was exemplified this year again by the overwhelming 
bipartisan majority that supported the passage of the NDAA from the 
committee in June. I look forward to continuing this tradition and this 
cooperation until we get this bill passed.
  Consideration of this year's NDAA comes at a pivotal moment for our 
national security. The global security environment we face is more 
volatile and dangerous than any other time in my memory or, I suggest, 
in the history of the country. Yet our ability to protect the country 
against these growing threats is at serious risk. After losing $487 
billion--that just came out of the defense budget through the first 
4\1/2\, 5 years of this administration--we now are looking at 
sequestration. Sequestration is an outcome thought to be so egregious 
and irresponsible that it would never be allowed to happen. None of us 
believed it would happen, that we would--after already losing $487 
billion from our defense system--have to be facing sequestration.
  I never can say ``sequestration'' without reminding people why it is 
only 18 percent of our budget goes to defending America. Yet they have 
been forced to endure 50 percent of the cuts. It is wrong. But, 
nonetheless, that is what has been happening over the last--it has been 
in effect for 8 months. Its drastic across-the-board cuts are 
exacerbating the effects of an already declining national security 
budget.
  As a result, the military is experiencing a dramatic decline in 
readiness and capabilities. I have a chart in the Chamber.
  General Odierno, the Chief of Staff of the Army, recently said that 
his forces are at the--I am quoting now--``lowest readiness levels I've 
seen within our Army since I've been serving for the last 37 years'' 
and that only two brigades are ready for combat--only two brigades. 
This is General Odierno.
  The reason I wanted this chart put up is because it tells us where we 
are today. The part shown in orange, which is the huge cuts coming from 
sequestration, is far greater than the rest of it. That is readiness. 
That is what we are talking about.
  We do hear a lot about the cost of personnel and all of that, but 
that is shown in the lower colored blue. So you are not talking about 
if you are able to do away with those actually coming up with any major 
reductions. The part shown in yellow is force structure. Now we are 
talking about, as General Odierno said, being down to only two brigades 
that are ready for combat. That is because of what has already been 
happening in the last 8 months in the force structure.
  The modernization is shown in green on the chart. Modernization is 
always the first to be cut when force cuts come in because they figure 
that is something you don't feel the pain of today. But I want you to 
concentrate on the part shown in orange because that is where it really 
would hurt us.
  So we had General Odierno saying his forces were at the lowest 
readiness levels he has seen in his 37 years in the U.S. Army. I was in 
the Army many years ago, and I can remember back then when it always 
had priority over everything. Defending America seemed to be the thing.
  Admiral Greenert, Chief of Naval Operations, said:

       . . . because of fiscal limitations and the situation we're 
     in we don't have another strike group trained and ready to 
     respond on short notice in case of a contingency. We're 
     tapped out.

  That is our Navy.
  Our top military leaders now warn of being unable to protect American 
interests around the world. Admiral Winnefeld--he is the Vice Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the next-to-the-highest military person--
said earlier this year: ``There could be, for the first time in my 
career, instances where we may be asked to respond to a crisis and we 
will have to say we cannot.''
  General Dempsey, the No. 1 military person, the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, has warned that continued national security cuts 
will--and I am again quoting--``severely limit our ability to implement 
our defense strategy. It will put the nation at greater risk of 
coercion, and it will break faith with the men and women in uniform.''
  That is why I am so troubled by this disastrous path we are on. In 
the face of mounting threats to America, prolonged budgetary 
uncertainties and the mindless sequestration cuts are crippling the 
people who are vital to our security, our men and women in the 
military.
  To be clear, our military was facing readiness shortfalls even before 
sequestration took effect. Sequestration has only been in effect for 8 
months. We never dreamed it would, after all the cuts we have gotten 
out of it from, quite frankly, this administration.
  So the equipment, the problems we have--rather than rebuilding the 
ability of our military to defend the country, we are digging ourselves 
deeper into a hole. The longer we allow military readiness and 
capabilities to decline, the more money and time it will take to 
rebuild.
  We are falling victim to the misguided belief that as the wars of 
today wind down, we can afford to gut investments in our Nation's 
defense. This is an irresponsible and dangerous course. I remember back 
during the middle of the 1990s. They talked about a peace dividend at 
that time. I can remember them saying: Well, the Cold War is over. We 
no longer need that strong of a military. Now, in this day and age, it 
is so much more serious than it has been in the past.
  Our top military leaders agree. In testimony before the Armed 
Services Committee last week, General Amos--he is the Commandant of the 
Marine Corps--testified that if he is asked to respond to a contingency 
in the current budget environment--I am quoting--``we will have fewer 
forces arriving less-trained, arriving later to the fight. This would 
delay the buildup

[[Page S8078]]

of combat power, allow the enemy more time to build its defenses, and 
would likely prolong combat operations altogether. This a formula for 
more American casualties.''
  That is the Commandant of the Marine Corps.
  Such an outcome would be immoral and a dereliction of duty. If we 
expect the men and women of our military to go into harm's way to 
protect America, we have an obligation to provide them with the 
training, technology, and capabilities required to decisively overwhelm 
any adversary at any time and return safely home to their loved ones. 
Under this sequestration, we cannot do it. That is what we are talking 
about right here when I say we are talking about our obligation to 
provide the training, technology, and capabilities. That is shown in 
all that orange on the chart. That means that is what we are not going 
to do.
  This is why ending sequestration and protecting the readiness of our 
military men and women remains my top priority. However, something must 
be done now to mitigate the devastating impacts to readiness until we 
can find a long-term solution.
  Again, I am just talking a little bit about the significance of 
having our Defense authorization bill come to the floor, get it 
started, start working on amendments. This is what is important. But in 
order to address the shortfalls we have, I have an amendment that would 
phase sequester in a way that would allow our senior military leaders 
to enact reforms without disproportionately degrading our ability to 
train and prepare our military men and women to protect this country.
  Let me say quickly, one of my closest friends in this Chamber is one 
of the Senators from Alabama, Jeff Sessions. Jeff Sessions, as we 
speak, is on a plane on his way back from California, so he cannot be 
here. Jeff Sessions has come up with an amendment. He is on the Budget 
Committee. He is a real budget hawk, and he still is willing to 
increase the military by 1 percent with a proposed amendment he might 
have. When Jeff Sessions gets back, I am going to talk to him about 
going together on his amendment so we can maybe merge the two 
amendments.
  My amendment seeks to leverage what General Odierno refers to as 
``ramping,'' a rephasing of the sequestration cuts that reduces the 
impact in fiscal year 2014 and 2015 to a more manageable level and 
shifts the remainder of the required cuts across the remaining years. 
So we are talking about that you would not feel it as much in these 
first 2 years, and yet we would make up for it, and that is why it is 
budget neutral. The Congressional Budget Office has told me this 
amendment will not score. That is very important to a lot of people.
  Let me be real clear: I remain committed to ending sequestration of 
our military men and women. My amendment does not fix sequestration nor 
will it impede my continued push for fixing sequestration. We are going 
to continue to do that. It is immoral that we are not doing it. 
However, the damage being done to our military is so egregious and 
reckless under the current sequester mechanism that I have no choice 
but to take this step to avoid an even greater readiness catastrophe 
that would seriously damage our national security.
  I talked just a few minutes ago to General Odierno. He is the 
Commander, the top person in the U.S. Army. I made a couple of notes 
here. I want to make sure I do not misquote him because he said if we 
can do what we are trying to do with this amendment--in other words, 
backload some of this stuff--it would actually save money 3 or 4 years 
from now because if you start cutting right now across the board, as 
would be mandated by sequestering, then you are going to be cutting in 
areas where it is going to cost you more to come back and do that. So I 
think you will find most of the military is very anxious to do that.
  Again, I am not going to offer this until we have a chance to talk to 
Senator Sessions and hopefully come up with something that will be 
sellable to this body.
  In addition to my concerns about sequestration, this bill contains 
several provisions that I find deeply problematic. In particular, I 
strongly oppose the sections that would loosen restrictions on the 
transfer of detainees from Guantanamo Bay into the United States or to 
countries such as Yemen that remain vulnerable to Al Qaeda and its 
terrorist affiliates.
  I have to ad-lib here a little bit because I cannot remember how many 
years I have been trying to save one of the greatest assets this 
country has, and that is Guantanamo Bay. I say to my good friend, the 
Presiding Officer, this is one of the few good deals we have because we 
have had Guantanamo Bay since 1904, and it has cost us--I think the 
total is $4,000 a year--and Castro forgets to collect about every other 
year. So it is one of the few good deals we have out there.
  It is the only place you can put these combatants where they are in a 
position where they can be interrogated and we can save American lives, 
and I do not know why this President, President Obama, has this 
obsession to turn these people out of Guantanamo Bay back into the 
United States. He first did this his first year--4 years ago. He had a 
plan. He had located, I think it was, 17 places in America where he 
could send these terrorists.
  One of them happened to be in my State of Oklahoma at Fort Sill. I 
will always remember that. I went down to Fort Sill, I say to the 
Presiding Officer, because I found out we have a small prison down 
there. And the major, a female who runs that prison, said to me: I 
can't understand what is wrong with you people in Washington. You have 
that perfectly good facility down there that will save American lives, 
and people are treated better than they have ever been treated before. 
One of the major problems we have down there is obesity because they 
are eating so much. So it is not a matter of not being treated fairly.
  Well, for some reason this President has had a--and one of the 
problems with turning these people back in to America into our system 
is that a terrorist is not a criminal. A terrorist teaches others. They 
are in the business of teaching other people to be terrorists. You put 
them in our prison system and they are going to be working on the 
people who are there. That is why I have such strong feelings about the 
closing of Guantanamo--or the President trying to do that. We have 
stopped him from doing that for 4\1/2\ years now. We will continue. 
However, they are trying to make it easier for them to take people out 
of Guantanamo Bay and send them to my State of Oklahoma and throughout 
America. Hopefully we can defeat that part of this bill.
  While I am pleased the bill fully funds the budget request for 
missile defense and includes a provision that would establish a radar 
site on the east coast, I remain concerned that we are vulnerable to a 
growing ballistic missile threat from the Middle East.
  Let me comment here. I was upset. The first budget that President 
Obama had, I knew--and again, when you say ``liberal'' and 
``conservative'' that is not name calling. ``Liberal'' simply means you 
want government to have more involvement in our lives, and he is a 
liberal person. And most liberals do not think we need a military, to 
start with.
  I always remember his first budget. I went over to Afghanistan so I 
could be there when he announced his budget, knowing if I was doing it 
from there with tanks going back and forth, I would get some attention 
on it. Sure enough, it worked.
  In that first budget, the President, in his budget, did away with our 
only fifth-generation fighter, the F-22; did away with our lift 
capacity, the C-17; did away with our future combat system, which had 
been the first advance in ground capability in probably 50 years.
  But I think the worst of everything was, he did away with the site 
that we were building in Poland and the Czech Republic to be a ground-
based interceptor that would take care of something coming from that 
direction into the United States.
  You see, we have 33 ground-based interceptors. They are all located 
on the west coast. Our intelligence has told us since 2007 that Iran is 
going to have the capability of a weapon and a delivery system--by 
weapon, I am talking about a nuclear weapon--and a delivery system by 
2015. We are talking about in less than a year and a half from now. He 
is going to have that capability. So we were building that for

[[Page S8079]]

the purpose of being able to catch something coming from that 
direction. Well, he took that out, and we stopped that.
  There are other problems with that too because I remember when we 
were trying to sell Poland and the Czech Republic on the idea. They 
said: Are you sure now? If we agree and we make Russia angry at us by 
agreeing to have a ground-based interceptor in Poland and the radar in 
the Czech Republic, are you sure that some President is not going to 
come along and pull the rug out from under us?
  I said: I am absolutely positive.
  That is exactly what happened.
  I only mention that because the radar site on the east coast 
certainly would not be effective by the time they are going to have 
that capability. Nonetheless, we are addressing it.
  I am pleased that under Chairman Levin's leadership the committee was 
able to reach a compromise during the markup to address the scourge of 
sexual assault in the military. The Senate bill includes 16 provisions 
that are specifically targeted to improving the tools the Department, 
the services, and the commanders have at their disposal for fighting 
sexual assault. It includes an additional 12 provisions to make 
important improvements to the military justice system and the Uniform 
Code of Military Justice. This is a comprehensive, targeted legislative 
initiative that would address that. That is going to be controversial. 
I understand that.
  I think a lot of us served in the military. It happens that I was in 
the military court many years before most of you guys were born. At 
that time the one thing I learned--and this was way back then--was that 
the commander's influence in discipline is necessary. We are all going 
to keep that in mind as we look at some of these amendments.
  I look forward to bringing this to the floor as soon as we can, 
getting these controversial issues out of the way. I am hoping I will 
get favorable consideration on my amendment that is going to make it 
much less devastating to the military.
  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. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________