[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 167 (Thursday, November 21, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8437-S8440]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
______
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014--Continued
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that
notwithstanding cloture having been invoked on the Millett nomination,
the Senate resume legislative session and consideration of S. 1197;
that the time until 4 p.m. be equally divided and controlled between
Chairman Levin and Ranking Member Inhofe or their designees, with the
chairman controlling the last half of the time; that at 4 p.m., the
Senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on S. 1197, the
Department of Defense authorization bill; that if cloture is invoked,
notwithstanding cloture having been invoked, the Senate proceed to vote
on S. Con. Res. 28; further, if cloture is invoked on S. 1197, the
second-degree amendment filing deadline be 5 p.m. today; finally, that
if cloture is not invoked on S. 1197, the Senate proceed to vote on
adoption of S. Con. Res. 28.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the bill by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1197) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2014 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:
Reid (for Levin/Inhofe) Amendment No. 2123, to increase to
$5,000,000,000 the ceiling on the general transfer authority
of the Department of Defense.
Reid (for Levin/Inhofe) Amendment No. 2124 (to Amendment
No. 2123), of a perfecting nature.
Reid motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Armed
Services, with instructions, Reid Amendment No. 2305, to
change the enactment date.
Reid Amendment No. 2306 (to (the instructions) Amendment
No. 2305), of a perfecting nature.
Reid Amendment No. 2307 (to Amendment No. 2306), of a
perfecting nature.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, let me first repeat, as I have many
times, I have never worked with a manager more closely than the
chairman of the Armed Services Committee Senator Levin. We worked very
hard through a lot of issues. On the few where we disagreed with each
other, we have handled it in a very civil way. We both want a bill and
we will have one.
The problem we have on the Republican side is we have not had a
chance to have amendments. I don't have the charts in here, but earlier
this morning I had charts here to show historically every time this
comes up, we have a number of amendments that the minority has--whether
the minority happens to be the Democrats or Republicans. All we want to
do is to consider these amendments.
Yesterday I said I don't think we will be able to do it, but I am
going to attempt to come today--or yesterday, I said tomorrow--with 25
amendments that all of the Republicans have said they would not object
to and we would say these are the ones we would like to have
considered. Of those, assuming the Democrats had 25 also, the most we
would have up for consideration would be maybe 20, probably less than
that, because historically that is the way it is.
I have given the majority the 25 amendments we would like to have
considered, and I made the statement yesterday--and I want to repeat it
today--that now that we have agreed on a list, if we can have these
amendments considered on the floor, then I would be a very strong
supporter of this bill.
However, after going through the work of coming down to these
amendments--and that is not an easy thing to do--if we are rejected and
we are not going to be able to have consideration of these 25
amendments, I would vote in opposition to cloture to go to the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, we will soon vote on whether to invoke
cloture on S. 1197, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2014. This bill was reported out of the Armed Services Committee
with a strong bipartisan vote of 23 to 3. We have enacted a National
Defense Authorization Act every year for more than 50 years, and it is
critically important that we do so again this year.
We spent all day yesterday debating two amendments addressing sexual
assault in the military, but we have not been allowed to vote on them.
There was opposition on the other side to voting even on those two
amendments which have now been fully debated. We were told that
Senators wouldn't let us vote on the sexual assault amendments because
they were afraid those would be the only votes. We offered to lock in
additional amendments, six for Democrats, six for Republicans. That got
an objection. Staff had built up a cleared amendment package of 39
additional amendments on a bipartisan basis, about half for each side,
that were all agreed to on the merits. Again, we got thwarted.
So over and over, we had objections to considering amendments, based
on the accusation that we were not considering enough amendments. But
how on earth does blocking the consideration of amendments that we can
all agree on advance the cause of considering amendments?
I am going to continue to work with my friend from Oklahoma--and we
are good friends and we work together well. He is right. I am going to
continue to work toward an agreement that will enable us to proceed
with additional amendments on this bill.
This would not be the first time this kind of a problem has happened
on a Defense authorization bill. In 2008, one Senator objected to
cleared amendment packages and to bringing up amendments. As a result,
we were able to have only two rollcall votes and adopted only 9
amendments--all of which were agreed to before the objection was
raised. Then, as now, the objection did not result in more amendments
being adopted but, rather, in almost no amendments being adopted at
all. In 2008, we invoked cloture and proceeded with the bill with
virtually no Senate amendments--a result which was less than ideal, but
at least it enabled us to enact a National Defense Authorization Act
that year.
We must pass a national defense authorization bill. If we fail to do
so, we will be letting down our men and women in uniform and failing to
perform one of Congress' most basic duties--providing for the national
defense.
As is the case every year, if we fail to enact this bill, our troops
will not get the full amount of compensation to which they are
entitled. If we fail to act, the Department's authority to pay out
combat pay, hardship duty pay, special pay for nuclear-qualified
servicemembers, enlistment and reenlistment bonuses, incentive pay for
critical specialties, assignment incentive pay, and accession and
retention bonuses for critical specialties will expire on December 31.
After that date, we will have troops in combat who will not get
combat pay. We will lose some of our most highly skilled men and women
with specialties that we vitally need. Not only will we be
shortchanging our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, but we will
be denying our military services critical authorities they need to
recruit and retain high-quality servicemembers, and to achieve their
force-
[[Page S8438]]
shaping objectives as they draw down their end strengths.
That is not all. If we fail to enact this bill, school districts all
over the United States that rely on supplemental impact aid to help
them educate military children will no longer receive that money. If we
fail to enact this bill, the Department of Defense will not be able to
begin construction on any new military construction projects in the
coming year. That means our troops won't get the barracks, ranges,
hospitals, laboratories, and other support facilities they need to
support operational requirements, conduct training, and maintain
equipment. It means that military family housing will not receive
needed upgrades.
If we fail to enact this bill, the existing military land withdrawals
will expire at China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station and Chocolate
Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range. That means our military will have to
cease operations on those vital test and training ranges, losing
critical testing and training capabilities that they relied on for the
last 25 years.
If we fail to enact this bill, the Department of Defense will run out
of money for the construction of the first ship of the Navy's new class
of aircraft carriers, the Gerald R. Ford. That means the Navy will have
to issue a stop work order on the construction of the Ford, requiring
them to lay off workers and requiring a break in production that will
add hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars not only to the
cost of the Ford, but also to the cost of follow-on aircraft carriers.
It goes on and on. If we fail to enact this bill, we will enact none
of the far-reaching reforms we need to address on the problem of sexual
assault in the military. Already we have been blocked in our effort to
clear a package of manager's amendments, including Senator Boxer's
amendment reforming the article 32 process.
Now, we are not only going to lose important reforms, but there are
two dozen measures that are in the bill which address the problem of
sexual assault. If we don't adopt this bill, we won't be providing a
Special Victims' Counsel for victims of sexual assault. We won't make
retaliation for reporting a sexual assault a crime under the Uniform
Code of Military Justice. If we don't adopt this bill, we won't require
commanders to immediately refer all allegations of sexual assault to
professional criminal investigators. We won't restrict the authority of
senior officers to modify the findings and sentence of court-martial
convictions, and we won't require higher level review of any decision
not to prosecute allegations of sexual assault.
We have already failed our men and women in uniform by failing to end
sequestration. We should not fail them again by failing to enact the
many critical measures included in the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2014.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, the Gillibrand amendment would address an
issue that is fundamental to who we are as Americans: ensuring justice
for the men and women who serve in our military.
When brave young men and women enlist in the armed services, they do
so to defend our country and our values. Yet those values are being
undermined by the problem of sexual assault in the military.
Over the past decades, our military has expanded equality. I am proud
that all of our services recognize that women have a vital role to play
in the military, including in combat. I wholeheartedly endorse, after
years of debate, the recognition that being openly gay or lesbian has
no bearing on one's ability to serve.
These advances in equality in our military are vitally important--
they make our military stronger and all of us safer--but they are an
empty promise without access to justice. And when men and women are the
victims of sexual assault in the military, they are often deprived of
justice.
We all know the shameful numbers. An estimated 26,000 cases of
unwanted sexual contact and sexual assaults occurred in 2012--a 37
percent increase from 2011. But the statistics that trouble me most are
that 50 percent of female victims did not report the crime because they
believed that nothing would be done. And 62 percent of victims who did
report a sexual assault perceived some form of professional, social, or
administrative retaliation as a result.
And the tragedy is--they're right. The Defense Advisory Committee on
Women in the Services spoke to this same problem and found:
``Unfortunately, recent events have shown these fears to be justified,
and may also have communicated to perpetrators that they need not fear
being held accountable for their actions.''
No wonder then, that the advisory committee voted in favor of
removing the decision whether to prosecute sexual assaults and other
serious crimes from the chain of command.
The United States was founded on twin ideals: equality and justice.
And much of our history has involved the struggle to expand equal
treatment under the law and access to justice. When we expand equality,
we also provide access to justice.
I think of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which made it unlawful for
employers to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion, or
national origin and created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
to enforce the law. Congress recognized that there is no equality
without justice. I think back to the days when white male juries were
the rule in virtually every courthouse in this country. Yet finally,
the Supreme Court in Norris v. Alabama and Taylor v. Louisiana said
that no one could be assured of a fair trial unless women and African
Americans served on their juries.
Equality and Justice--they are two sides of the same coin. They walk
hand in hand.
In the United States, one of the fundamental precepts of our criminal
justice system is an independent prosecutor. The authority to charge
someone with a crime is an awesome power. Exercised improperly, an
innocent person can be forced to endure a trial or a criminal can go
unpunished, free to harm their next victim. Under the Code of Military
Justice, that critical prosecutorial decision is made by a commanding
officer--someone often in both the victim's and the alleged
perpetrator's chain of command--and, typically, not someone trained in
the law. If----and statistically in sexual assault cases it is rare--if
the commanding officer determines to try a charge by court-martial, the
same commander also picks the jurors who will decide the case. I have
no doubt that most commanders try their best to evaluate charges of
sexual assault but they are inherently conflicted and compromised when
we force them to make the call. We do these commanders a disservice by
requiring them to solve this inexorable conflict.
As an impressive group of law professors, many of whom are veterans,
and all of whom are experts in military justice wrote:
Commanders play a decisive role in military operations and
must likewise play a central role in reducing sexual assault
and maintaining good order and discipline generally. That
role, however, need not extend to the relatively narrow and
thoroughly legal arena of criminal prosecution. Contemporary
norms of procedural justice require that attorneys, not
commanding officers, make decisions to prosecute. As a
result, we recommend that the decision to prosecute a member
of the armed forces for criminal conduct . . . be made by an
independent prosecutor outside the chain of command.
And, they added, personnel who serve as court-martial jurors should
be chosen by a court-martial administrator rather than a commander,
``to avoid concerns about jury-stacking and unlawful command
influence.''
That is precisely what the Gillibrand amendment does. It vests the
authority to prosecute serious criminal charges with experienced judge
advocate general officers who can evaluate the evidence with a clear,
cold eye and determine whether charges should be tried. That
independence is the only way we can assure both the victim and the
alleged perpetrator of justice--equal justice under the law. That's
what this country is all about. That's why so many young men and women
volunteer to serve. And we owe them nothing less.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, today I rise in support of the fiscal
year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act and to address significant
challenges facing the Department of Defense.
The bill approved by the Armed Services Committee includes necessary
provisions to take care of our troops, such
[[Page S8439]]
as a 1-percent pay raise and the maintenance of affordable health care
fees to avoid a detrimental effect on military retirees and their
families.
I thank Chairman Levin and Ranking Member Inhofe for increasing
authorizations for the shipbuilding budget, including an additional
$100 million to support the procurement of a tenth DDG-51 destroyer
under the current multiyear procurement contract. I am pleased that the
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee on which I serve has also included
this critical $100 million.
This ship is needed in the fleet to maintain the robust forward
presence our Nation requires to protect trade routes, keep the peace,
and assist when tragedy strikes.
When tensions flared in Syria, it was Navy destroyers that were
positioned off the coast. Following the devastation of Typhoon Haiyan
in the Philippines, two U.S. Navy destroyers were among the first ships
on station.
Taking advantage of the opportunity to procure this ship will lock
additional savings on a multiyear procurement that has already saved
taxpayers $1.5 billion compared to procuring the ships individually.
I am also pleased the Armed Services Committee incorporated many
provisions I support to combat sexual assault, which is one of the
greatest challenges faced by the Department of Defense for a decade.
I first raised my concern about sexual assaults in the military with
General George Casey in 2004. To say his response was disappointing
would be an understatement. I am convinced that if the military had
heeded the concern I raised then, this terrible problem would have been
addressed much sooner, saving many individuals the trauma, pain, and
injustice they endured.
While I will address this issue at greater length during
consideration of this bill, I want to highlight three of the most
important changes included in the bill.
First, the bill limits the authority of a convening authority to
overturn or modify the findings of a court-martial in sexual assault
cases. Second, the bill requires the military to provide an attorney
dedicated to the interests of survivors of sexual assaults to provide
legal advice and assistance when survivors need such assistance the
most. Third, a servicemember convicted of sexual assault would be
discharged from the military.
I also support the provisions in the bill to maintain the readiness
of our military services by authorizing $1.8 billion to address
readiness problems caused by fiscal year 2013 sequestration. This bill
also directs the Pentagon to rein in unnecessary or wasteful spending
while rejecting proposals that purport to save money but that actually
cause more harm than good.
Two important provisions require DOD to develop a plan to reduce the
number of General and Flag officer billets and to streamline management
headquarters in an effort to save $100 billion over 10 years. Reducing
unnecessary overhead is something we must insist upon in these fiscally
constrained times.
Increasing the authorization for the Department of Defense Inspector
General by $36 million will allow the office to perform additional
oversight and help identify waste, fraud, and abuse in DOD programs.
Historically, DOD IG reviews have resulted in a return on investment of
nearly $11 dollars for every $1 appropriated.
The bill wisely rejects the President's proposal to authorize a new
Base Realignment and Closure round in 2015 and prohibits the
authorization of another BRAC round at least until the Department
submits a review of excess overseas military facilities.
This is the right way to proceed because the GAO has found that the
previous BRAC round has never produced the amount of savings that were
promised when it was originally sold to Congress.
While this is an excellent bill, I hope to offer several amendments
to make this important bill even stronger in addressing the national
security challenges facing our country.
The first amendment I intend to offer, with my colleague Senator
King, has been requested by the Navy to support the final settlement of
the A-12 case. The Navy has reached an agreement with Boeing and
General Dynamics to settle a decades-old lawsuit concerning the
cancellation of the A-12 aircraft.
Our amendment would allow the Navy to accept $400 million in in-kind
payments from industry to satisfy outstanding Navy claims related to
the A-12 legal dispute between the Navy and two contractors, Boeing and
General Dynamics. All parties--the Navy, the Department of Justice,
Boeing, and General Dynamics--support the settlement.
If this amendment is adopted, the Navy will receive $400 million
worth of needed military hardware effectively for free at a time when
it is facing incredible fiscal challenges from sequestration.
In addition, taxpayers benefit because there is no guarantee the
government will ultimately prevail in the ongoing litigation. If the
government does not prevail, taxpayers may not get anything.
The second amendment I intend to file would require athletic footwear
purchased for new military recruits to be domestically manufactured.
Currently, DOD is circumventing the intent of the law known as the
Berry Amendment through the use of cash allowances that provide no
preference for domestically manufactured footwear. This amendment,
which is also cosponsored by Senator King, would align the procurement
policy for athletic footwear with other footwear and clothing provided
to servicemembers.
In the last year, the Defense Logistics Agency has awarded more than
$36 million in contracts for combat boots and dress shoes made in
America. In contrast, the military services have provided cash vouchers
totaling more than $15 million per year to new recruits to purchase
athletic footwear, without any preference for domestically manufactured
products. Why should DOD single out athletic footwear to be treated
differently from dress shoes or combat boots?
Another amendment with Senator Blumenthal would require the Attorney
General to jointly prescribe regulations to implement prescription drug
take-back programs with the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans
Affairs.
We know prescription drug abuse is a major factor in military and
veteran suicides, which are occurring at an alarming rate.
Unfortunately, 349 servicemembers died from suicide in 2012--more than
the number of servicemembers who lost their lives in combat in
Afghanistan last year. According to the VA, 22 veterans commit suicide
each day based on data collected from more than 21 States.
Last year, the Senate adopted this amendment by unanimous consent.
Regrettably, the provision was eliminated at the urging of the Drug
Enforcement Agency with assurances that the agency was nearing
completion of regulations that would address the concern.
One year later, we are still receiving written assurances from the
DEA that they are ``almost ready'' to complete these regulations. In
the meantime, prescription drug abuse continues to afflict our service
men and women and our veterans. We cannot sit idly by for another year
waiting for the bureaucracy to address this matter of life and death.
Finally, Senator King and I will offer an amendment to allow
businesses that are located on a closed military base to draw employees
from the local community to meet the 35-percent requirement for the
purposes of qualifying as a HUBZone.
Congress previously passed a law to assist communities affected by
previous BRAC rounds by allowing former bases to be eligible for
HUBZone status, which provides preferences for certain Federal
contracting opportunities.
Unfortunately, the law limits the geographic boundaries of a BRAC-
related HUBZone to be the same as the boundaries of the base that was
closed, which makes it difficult or impossible for businesses to
qualify for the HUBZone program.
Our amendment would allow employees that live in nearby census tracts
to count toward the 35 percent requirement and extend the period of
eligibility from 5 years to 10 years so Congress' original intent can
be fulfilled.
In addition to these amendments, I intend to cosponsor several others
to further improve the bill.
Once again, I will support Senator Feinstein's amendment to make
clear that a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident arrested in the
U.S. cannot be
[[Page S8440]]
detained indefinitely without charge or trial.
I am also cosponsoring an amendment with Senator Pryor to make sure
that our dual status National Guard technicians are treated on an equal
footing as our Active-Duty personnel. If our Active-Duty personnel are
exempted from sequestration, then the National Guard dual status
technicians--who are effectively the equivalent of Active-Duty military
in the National Guard--should be exempt as well.
Let me close by thanking Chairman Levin and Ranking Member Inhofe for
their hard work in putting together a bipartisan bill that addresses
the needs of our military and our national security.
Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I strongly oppose efforts to close down
debate on the National Defense Authorization Act.
It is a shame that despite being on this bill for four days, we have
only had two rollcall votes for amendments. Over 400 amendments have
been filed and we only found time to vote twice.
This is unacceptable. While I voted against this legislation in
committee because it clearly and significantly ignored the budget caps
put in place by sequestration, there are significant provisions worthy
of support.
The Senate worked in a bipartisan manner with leadership from the
junior Senator from New York to consider an amendment to reform and
modernize our military justice system. This amendment was carefully
crafted in anticipation that it would receive a roll call vote on the
Senate floor and I proudly cosponsored and supported this amendment.
The junior Senator from Indiana had an amendment to help military
reservists and the National Guard be recognized for their service and
qualify for veterans' preference in hiring for federal jobs. His
amendment deserves consideration and a vote.
Democrats and Republicans in the Armed Services Committee adopted
several of my amendments to this bill to protect the religious liberty
of our troops serving here in the United States and overseas. The Armed
Services Committee also accepted my proposals to prohibit a base
realignment and closure commission until after the Department of
Defense conducts an exhaustive review of our overseas bases, and to
study how the entire United States should be protected against threats
from a missile launch.
Also, I am seeking an up-or-down vote or an acceptance of an
amendment I filed to authorize up to a $10 million reward for any
information regarding the terrorist attacks against Americans in
Benghazi, Libya. I have been very flexible in accepting edits and
changes from the majority in order to speed this process along.
The same goes for my amendment to protect the Mount Soledad veterans'
memorial in California. In fact, the senior Senator from California
filed the exact same legislation. So this is not a political or
partisan amendment but yet it is still being denied consideration.
For these reasons and for the obstruction by the Senate majority
leader who accuses the minority of being obstructionist, I oppose
ending debate on the National Defense Authorization Act.
Mr. INHOFE. Would the Chairman yield?
Mr. LEVIN. I would be happy to yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mr. INHOFE. Parliamentary inquiry? We were to be given equal time for
the last 10 minutes. I had 3 minutes. All I want to do is ask a
question. Am I entitled to do that?
Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that be allowed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Everything my Chairman has said I agree with. He is
making my speech for me. It is critical we get the bill. All I am
saying is I made the statement yesterday that Republicans are entitled
to some amendments. I am asking now--we were able to get it down to 25
amendments to be considered. Will the majority consider these 25
amendments which can be done in half a day? Would he consider that?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, there are no Democrat amendments on his
list.
Mr. INHOFE. I said 25 amendments. This is our list. You come up with
your list.
Mr. LEVIN. We cannot agree with a list of amendments, many of which
are not agreed to on this side, many of which would be filibustered on
this side, which would result in just making it impossible for us to
get to a Defense authorization bill conclusion.
I ask unanimous consent that a unanimous consent request--which I was
going to make but I will withhold--that lists 26 amendments, half
Democratic, half Republican, that I was going to ask consent be adopted
because they have been cleared--which I understand will be objected to
so I will not make the unanimous consent request--be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Levin Amendments on DoD Auth Request
I ask unanimous consent that prior to the vote on the
motion to invoke cloture on S. 1197, the motion to recommit
be withdrawn; the pending Levin amendment #2123 be set aside
for Senator Gillibrand, or designee, to offer amendment #2099
relative to sexual assault; that the amendment be subject to
a relevant side-by-side amendment from Senators McCaskill and
Ayotte, amendment #2170; that no second degree amendments be
in order to either of the sexual assault amendments; that
each of these amendments be subject to a 60 affirmative vote
threshold; the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the
Gillibrand amendment #2099; that upon disposition of the
Gillibrand amendment, the Senate proceed to vote in relation
to the McCaskill-Ayotte amendment #2170; that there be two
minutes equally divided in between the votes; upon
disposition of the McCaskill-Ayotte amendment and prior to
the cloture vote, the following amendments be in order to the
bill and called up, en bloc:
Inhofe #2031
Chambliss #2038
Graham #2062
Collins #2064
Thune #2093
Flake #2263
Kirk #2287
Johanns #2348
Moran #2365
McCain #2489
Lee #2453
Portman #2461
Cruz #2511
Gillibrand #2283
Warner #2415
Heinrich #2243
Durbin #2278
Kaine #2424
Boxer #2081
Hagan #2391
Wyden #2282
Blumenthal #2121
Manchin #2251
Coons #2442
McCaskill #2171; and
Levin #2204
That these amendments be agreed to, en bloc; and the motion
to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with
no intervening action or debate; that upon disposition of
these amendments, the Senate proceed to the cloture vote as
provided under the previous order.
____________________