[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 164 (Monday, November 18, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8080-S8081]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION

  Mr. McCAIN. First, I obviously wish to join all of my colleagues in 
welcoming back our dear friend, the Senator from Oklahoma, Jim Inhofe. 
We know he has gone through a very terrible family tragedy, and our 
thoughts and prayers continue to be with him and the members of his 
family. We are very happy to see him return, working and leading on 
this very important aspect of our work, the National Defense 
Authorization Act.
  Today I will have filed an amendment on behalf of Senator Sessions 
and myself--Senator Sessions, as we all know, is the ranking member of 
the Budget Committee--to try to address the issue of this terrible 
effect on our defense establishment as a result of sequestration. 
Rather than go into the background of why it happened, the fact is that 
now in 2012, 2013, and into 2014, we see a continued decline in funding 
for national defense and then a rise, as it is currently planned. This 
is current law.
  Obviously, it is not a rational approach because our defense business 
and people in the Pentagon do not plan on a day-to-day or week-to-week 
or month-to-month basis.
  What this amendment does is it preserves sequestration--which I am 
opposed to--but the fact remains that in order to try to ease the 
burden of sequestration on our military, this would smooth out this dip 
that has taken place over an 8-year period until the expiration of 
current law in 2021, and next year and the years after for 2014, 2015, 
2016, and 2017 it would give increases in spending and then reductions 
in those outyears and still achieve the same reductions in spending as 
dictated by sequestration.
  The reason I say this is because we are looking at a dramatic impact 
on our military if we allow spending to go down to that level for 2014 
before we start climbing back up.
  What is happening to our military today? It has a large impact, it is 
disgraceful, and it is harmful. In this very unsettled world we live 
in, we are seeing unprecedented reductions and impact on our national 
security that we have not seen since the end of the Vietnam war.
  Two weeks ago the Armed Services Committee held a hearing to 
understand how the sequester had impacted the Department of Defense. We 
learned, according to the Chief of Staff of the Army, GEN Ray Odierno, 
that continued sequestration along this line will cause the Army to 
end, restructure or delay over 100 acquisition programs. The Army, 
already drawing down by 80,000 Active-Duty troops, will be forced to 
reduce and eliminate an additional 60,000. The Guard and Reserve would 
also be forced to remove tens of thousands of men and women from their 
ranks. It amounts to an almost 20-percent cut in troop strength over 
the next 5 years and will result in an Army that has tens of thousands 
fewer soldiers than it had in 2011. Unit training has been curtailed 
such that by the end of 2014, if we go down this scale, General Odierno 
forecasts that only 15 percent of Army brigade combat teams will be 
fully ready in the event of a contingency.
  The Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Greenert, testified that 
sequestration means the Navy will operate more sparsely across the 
globe and be less able to reassure our allies that U.S. interests 
around the world are properly served. The Navy is the most visible sign 
of America's strategic deterrent, and we are putting that deterrent at 
risk.
  The Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. James Amos, said that 
because of sequestration, he was ``mortgaging'' long-term modernization 
to pay for keeping his marines trained and ready today, but he also 
said the plan is not sustainable. As equipment and facilities age, he 
won't be able to pay for their upkeep while simultaneously paying for 
training. What will give, unfortunately, is readiness.
  As all the service chiefs testified, ``readiness'' means lives. The 
lower their readiness, the greater the risk to the lives of soldiers, 
sailors, airmen, and marines in the event of a deployment.
  The Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Gen. Mark Welsh, told us that 
the Air Force had to ground 13 combat squadrons--had to ground 13 
combat squadrons--because they lacked funding due to sequestration. 
Other squadrons' flying hours were cut in half. He warned that 
continued cuts to flying hours, which are a certainty under this 
present plan, will guarantee that many more squadrons will forego 
mission readiness in the coming years. General Welsh's least damaging 
plan to pay for sequestration is to cut some 25,000 airmen and 500 
aircraft, almost 10 percent of the aircraft inventory.
  Obviously, what is not reflected in these numbers is the impact on 
morale and retention. The Air Force is deeply concerned about the 
number of pilots it is losing to private industry. My colleagues may 
not know that there is a large exodus of airline pilots that will be 
leaving the airlines due to retirement in the next few years.
  There is a recent story where a number of Air Force pilots were 
offered a bonus of $225,000 to remain in the U.S. Air Force and most of 
them turned it down. Why are they turning it down? It is because they 
are not flying, and they are not sure whether they are going to be 
flying.
  We are cutting their flying hours to the bone. We are grounding 
entire squadrons. We are harming the morale and readiness of our 
military today in all of the services.
  I provide those examples, but as one Air Force leader said recently: 
``If you're not flying your aircraft because it's grounded, you might 
as well go fly something else.''
  I provide these examples because it is important for us to understand 
that our actions in Congress are presently and materially degrading our 
military's ability to defend the Nation and protect our interests 
abroad. This is not an abstraction, especially at a time when 
international threats and instability are growing and not lessening.
  I acknowledge there is a fatigue after more than a decade of war. 
Cutting the defense budget seems an easy way to ameliorate the Nation's 
dire budget problems, but such thinking is wrong.
  I remember the troop cuts and the budget reductions after Vietnam. I 
remember that it took us 15 years to restore the military to the 
proficiency, capability, and professionalism that we have today.
  Defense represents less than 20 percent of total government spending. 
We could zero out the entire defense budget and would still, with the 
growth of entitlement spending and the prevalence of tax loopholes, not 
be able to reduce the Federal deficit.
  I have worked with colleagues for 2 years trying to address this 
issue. I have toured the country with Kelly Ayotte and Lindsey Graham 
and met with community and business leaders. I joined with our 
distinguished chairman Carl Levin and hosted a series of meetings with 
Senators to find common ground. None was to be found.

[[Page S8081]]

  So here we are, with an obvious impact for next year of sequestration 
which would dramatically impact our ability to defend this Nation. In 
desperation, I am asking my colleagues to at least agree to smoothing 
out this path--which would end up with the same reductions in the 
spending but at least not hit this bottom level which would cause us to 
have planes that will not fly, ships that can't sail, and men and women 
in the military unable to train and operate. Once we reduce and impact 
operations and maintenance, readiness suffers, and readiness 
incapability only shows up over time.
  I spent last Sunday with my friend Senator Alexander. The Senator 
from Tennessee and I were at Fort Campbell, KY, where we spent some 
time with the men and women who are serving in the military. We were 
briefed by the military leadership and the command master sergeants of 
the various units based at Fort Campbell, KY. We found that already the 
ability to train, the ability to retain, the ability to act with the 
kind of proficiency which is necessary in today's world is already 
being seriously degraded.
  So I ask my colleagues, in working with Senator Sessions via the 
Sessions amendment, to consider this amendment to the National Defense 
Authorization Act so we can at least soften the blow, to some degree, 
of sequestration.
  Senator Lamar Alexander and I were taken by the patriotism, the hard 
work, and the quality of the men and women serving our Nation in the 
United States Army at Fort Campbell, KY. Senator Alexander and I were 
both deeply alarmed at the fact that these people are literally having 
to budget and operate on a month-to-month basis. They are not able to 
sustain the level of readiness and capability that this Nation needs at 
this very difficult time.
  So I urge my colleagues to consider this amendment that Senator 
Sessions will be sponsoring. I look forward to debating and hopefully 
passing this legislation to give our men and women the relief they need 
to serve this country with the patriotism and the efficiency we need in 
these difficult times.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________