[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 173 (Monday, December 9, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8548-S8552]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 1197, which the clerk will report.
The bill 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 Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, before we left for the Thanksgiving break,
Senator Inhofe and I said we would come to the Senate floor today to
update Members on the status of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2014.
Before the break we spent a week on the Senate floor trying to bring
more amendments up and to have them debated and voted on, but we were
unable to do so. We tried to reach agreement to limit consideration to
defense-related amendments, but we were unable to do that. We tried to
get consent to vote on two sexual assault amendments--the Gillibrand
amendment and the McCaskill amendment--that had been fully debated, but
we could not get that consent. We tried to get consent to lock in
additional amendments for votes and to move a package of cleared
amendments, but we were unable to do so.
At this point, the House of Representatives will be adjourning for
the year at the end of this week, and there is simply no way we can
debate and vote on those amendments to the pending bill, get cloture,
pass the bill, go to conference with the House, get a conference report
written, and have it adopted by the House of Representatives all before
the House goes out of session this Friday. There simply is no way all
of those events can take place to get a defense bill passed.
So Senator Inhofe and I believe it is our responsibility to the Armed
Services Committee, to the Senate, to our men and women in uniform, and
to the country to do everything we can to enact a defense authorization
bill. For this reason, we are taking the same approach we took when we
were unable to finish the bill and go to conference with the House in
2008 and 2010. What we did is we sat down with our counterparts on the
House side--in this case, chairman Buck McKeon and ranking member Adam
Smith of the House Armed Services Committee--and we set our staffs to
work to come up with a bill that would have a chance of getting passed
by both Houses.
The four of us have reached agreement on a bill that we hope will be
passed by the House before it recesses this Friday and, if it does,
then be considered by the Senate next week.
We worked hard to blend the bill that was overwhelmingly voted out of
the Senate Armed Services Committee with the bill that was
overwhelmingly approved by the House of Representatives. We have
worked, as we always do, on the SAS Committee on a bipartisan basis.
We took into consideration as many proposed Senate amendments as we
could. We focused on amendments that had been cleared on the Senate
side when the bill was being debated in the Senate. We approached these
amendments and others in much the same manner as we did provisions that
were in the bill, working to come up with language, wherever possible,
that could be accepted on the Democratic and Republican sides in both
the Senate and the House.
The bill we have come up with is not a Democratic bill or a
Republican bill. It is a bipartisan defense bill, one that serves the
interests of our men and women in uniform and preserves the important
principle of congressional oversight over the Pentagon. Here are some
examples of what will be in the bill that will be considered by the
House later this week and then hopefully by the Senate next week.
The bill will extend the authority of the Department of Defense to
pay combat pay and hardship duty pay for our troops. The bill, relative
to Guantanamo, includes that part of the Senate language easing
restrictions on overseas transfers of Gitmo detainees, but it retains
the House prohibitions on transferring detainees to the United States.
Although we were unable to consider the Gillibrand and McCaskill
amendments on the Senate floor or in the bill itself that will be
forthcoming, the bill includes more than 20 other provisions to address
the problem of sexual assault in the military that were in the Senate
bill that came to the floor out of the committee and that were in the
House of Representatives bill as well.
These provisions include the following: They provide a special
victims' counsel for survivors of sexual assault, make retaliation for
reporting a sexual assault a crime under the Uniform Code of Military
Justice. The provisions require commanders to immediately refer all
allegations of sexual assault to professional criminal investigators.
They would end the commanders' ability to modify findings and
convictions for sexual assaults, and would require higher level review
of any decision not to prosecute allegations of sexual assault.
The bill will do the following that will be hopefully coming here
next week: Make the Article 32 process more like a grand jury
proceeding. Under the UCMJ, the Uniform Code of Military Justice,
currently the proceeding that is taken under Article 32 is more like a
discovery proceeding rather than a grand jury proceeding, and it has
created all kinds of problems, including for victims of sexual assault
who would have to appear and be subject to cross-examination by the
defense.
This bill will extend supplemental impact aid to help local school
districts educate military children. The bill will extend existing
military land withdrawals in a number of places that would otherwise
expire, leaving the military without critical testing and training
capabilities. The bill includes a new land withdrawal to enable the
Marine Corps to expand its training area at 29 Palms.
The bill provides needed funding authority for the destruction of the
Syrian chemical weapons stockpile and for efforts of the Jordanian
Armed Forces to secure that country's border with Syria.
Earlier today GEN Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
[[Page S8549]]
Staff, wrote a letter to the leadership of the Senate and the House of
Representatives in which he strongly urges completion of action on the
National Defense Authorization Act this year. General Dempsey's letter
provides a long list of essential authorities that will lapse if this
bill is not enacted. This is just one paragraph from his letter:
The authorities contained [in the National Defense
Authorization Act] are critical to the Nation's defense and
urgently needed to ensure we all keep faith with the men and
women, military and civilian, selflessly serving in our Armed
Forces.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that General Dempsey's letter,
with that attachment, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff,
Washington, DC, December 9, 2013.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington. DC.
As we enter the final weeks of December, I write to urge
you to complete the National Defense Authorization Act this
year. The authorities contained therein are critical to the
Nation's defense and urgently needed to ensure we all keep
faith with the men and women, military and civilian,
selflessly serving in our Armed Forces. Allowing the Bill to
slip to January adds yet more uncertainty to the force and
further complicates the duty of our commanders who face
shifting global threats. I also fear that delay may put the
entire Bill at risk, protracting this uncertainty and
impacting our global influence. For your reference, enclosed
is a list summarizing expiring authorities.
I deeply appreciate congressional efforts to achieve a
budget deal and subsequent appropriations. Your efforts to
provide the Joint Chiefs the Time, Certainty, and Flexibility
in both our budget and authorities will help ensure we keep
our Nation safe from coercion.
I appreciate your continued concern for and support of our
men and women in uniform
Sincerely,
Martin E. Dempsey,
General, U.S. Army.
____
LIST OF EXPIRING AUTHORITIES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title Expiration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authority Issues:
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund-................... 9/30/2013
Authority for Joint Task Forces to Provide Support 9/30/2013
to Law Enforcement Agencies Conducting Counter-
Terrorism Activities -.............................
Authority for Reimbursement of Certain Coalition 9/30/2013
Nations for Support Provided to United States
Military Operations-...............................
Authority to Provide Additional Support for Counter- 9/30/2013
drug Activities of Other Countries-................
Authority to Support Unified Counter-drug and 9/30/2013
Counter-terrorism Campaign in Colombia.............
Commanders Emergency Response Program in Afghanistan- 9/30/2013
...................................................
Authority to Establish a Program to Develop and 9/30/2013
Carry Out Infrastructure Projects in Afghanistan-..
Logistical Support for Coalition Forces Supporting 9/30/2013
Operations in Afghanistan-.........................
Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund (DoS)-.............. 9/30/2013
Task Force on Business and Stability Operations in 9/30/2013
Afghanistan and Economic Transition Plan and
Economic Strategy for Afghanistan-.................
Enhancement of Authorities Relating to DoD Regional 9/30/2013
Centers for Security Studies-......................
Authority to Support Operations and Activities of 9/30/2013
the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq-........
Ford Class Carrier Construction Authority-.......... 9/30/2013
North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security 9/30/2013
Investment Program-................................
Reintegration Activities in Afghanistan-............ 12/31/2013
Military Special Pays and Bonuses-.................. 12/31/2013
Expiring Bonus and Special Pay Authorities provided 12/31/2013
by P.L. 112-239, sections 611-615 (National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013)-...........
Travel and Transportation Allowances-............... 12/31/2013
Authority to Waive Annual Limitation on Premium Pay 12/31/2013
and Aggregate Limitation on Pay for Federal
Civilian Employees Working Overseas-...............
Non-Conventional Assisted Recovery Capabilities-.... 9/30/2013
Support of Foreign Forces Participating in 9/30/2013
Operations to Disarm the Lord's Resistance Army-...
Authority to Provide FAA War Risk Insurance to CRAF 12/31/2013
Carriers-..........................................
Authority to Provide Temporary Increase in Rates of 12/31/2013
Basic Allowance for Housing Under Certain
Circumstances -....................................
Acquisition Issues:
New Starts, Production Increases, Multiyear Various
Procurements-......................................
80/20 Rule-......................................... N/A
General Transfer Authority & Special Transfer N/A
Authority-.........................................
AP of Virginia Class-............................... 10/1/2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. LEVIN. We have not failed to pass a National Defense
Authorization Act for 52 years even when, as I mentioned, in a couple
cases in recent years the final bill was the result of a process like
we have had to follow with this year's authorization bill.
This is not the best way to proceed, but our troops and their
families and our Nation's security deserve a defense bill, and this is
the only practical way to get a defense bill done this year. There is
no other way, because, as I indicated before, the House of
Representatives is--we could not get a bill done before the end of this
week if we brought back the bill that was pending before Thanksgiving.
There is no way we can do it. And the experience in the week before the
Thanksgiving recess demonstrated pretty clearly there is no way we
could get a defense bill, such as the one that was pending, passed in
this body before the end of this week.
The problem is that the House of Representatives is done at the end
of this week. If we use the pending bill that was previously pending as
the vehicle, we cannot possibly get to a conference, get an agreement
on a conference, get a conference report, go back to the House of
Representatives, and then get a conference report here, because the
House of Representatives is done on Friday.
This is the only path to a bill. We have not missed in 52 years, and
the reason we do not miss is our troops and their families and the
national security of this country. That is why we have not failed. We
cannot fail this year. The only practical way to avoid failure is if we
follow the course which Senator Inhofe and I are now proposing to this
body. Again, it is not the preferred course. It just happens to be the
only course.
I thank Senator Inhofe and all the members of our committee for the
way they have worked on this bill for now almost a whole year and for
the final product, which I believe will have the full committee support
or at least almost all of us. There were only three members of our
committee who did not vote for the bill that came to the floor before.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. King). The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, let me express my
appreciation for not just since this last Monday--a week ago today--
when we met and put together a negotiated settlement, a negotiated
bill, but all year long, in the previous year, Senator Levin has been
very good to work with. We did our best to get a bill. We passed our
bill out of committee months ago--months ago--and the problem has been
here.
I am critical of the leadership of the Senate and a lot of the people
who wanted amendments. I have to say this: On the Republican side, we
agreed, finally, to cut it down to 25 amendments, which I think is very
reasonable, and we were denied that. I could be critical. It does not
do any good to be critical of the majority right now because we are
where we are now.
The chairman has stated that looking at December we only have between
now and Friday at 11 o'clock. That is it; the House is gone. They have
already made that decision. They have made the announcement. It is
going to happen. So mechanically, if we are all going to embrace and
love each other and not disagree with anything, it still could not be
done. There is no way in the world we can have a defense authorization
bill this year except to do the negotiated bill we got together on.
By the way, when people say they want to wait until January, keep in
mind that on December 31 the services will no longer be authorized to
pay hazardous pay to the troops serving in hostile-fire areas. After
December 31 the services will no longer be authorized to offer 37
specific special and incentive pays, including enlistment and
reenlistment bonuses.
These people in service, those who have been in service, we know they
approach them when it is getting close to the time they are going to
get out. They say: These are the benefits that are going to be there if
you will reenlist. It is absolutely necessary that they have that
information. All of a sudden, we are pulling the rug out from under
them, after they had anticipated what their reenlistment would be.
Those things stop December 31. If you say: Well, we will come back in
January and do it, I can show you this calendar right here. We start on
January 6, and we are going to be in the CR on January 15. There is no
way they are going to pay any attention to Defense authorization during
that time period. There is not the time to do it.
I will not be redundant and repeat what the chairman talked about
that would not happen.
Gitmo is controversial. However, the provisions in the Fiscal Year
2013 NDAA which prohibit the transfer of Gitmo detainees to the United
States have expired. The prohibitions, which are currently in effect,
which prevent the transfer of detainees to the United States are
provisions which were included in an Appropriations Act. That Act,
which has been extended due to
[[Page S8550]]
the CR, is set to expire in January. Therefore, it is important to
enact the FY'14 NDAA since our bill will extend these prohibitions for
all of 2014. Of course, we also passed prohibitions on construction and
modifying facilities in the United States. However, all of these
prohibitions could come to an end if we do not have this bill.
Now, we have covered this. I appreciate the fact--and I want to
repeat what the chairman said--that we actually had and cleared and
considered some 87 amendments. In this bill we got 79 of the
amendments; that is, Democratic and Republican amendments. So we have
done this in the areas where we are supposed to be accomplishing it.
I looked at some of the things in military construction. We will have
to stop work on any major projects that are currently under
construction. I mean, they could be partway through a project. For
example, the bill contains $136 million to continue construction for
the replacement of a command center for the U.S. Strategic Command at
Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska. If this amount is not authorized for
appropriations, DOD will have to stop work halfway through
construction, leading to a contract claim, lost time, maybe even
lawsuits, but certainly extra work. I can say the same about areas in
Maryland, Kentucky, Washington, Texas, and New York. If we look at the
construction of aircraft carriers, without the congressional action we
have in this bill to update the statutory cap on construction of the
CVN-78--the USS Ford, the first aircraft carrier of the Ford class--the
Navy will be forced to cease construction of the CVN-78 when it is
already 75 percent complete, denying our Nation this critical asset
after we have already spent $12 billion on it. We are talking about
huge amounts of money. We are talk about defending the United States of
America.
I hate to think we got here the way we did. We should not have had to
do that. There is some blame to go around on both sides, but
nonetheless we have been unable to do it the way we have done it in the
past.
I will tell you something that is kind of interesting. We did a
study. We found that in the last 30 years we have never gone into
January before. Never. Not once.
The two times we went in were after a veto of the bill, and then
after that we immediately overrode the veto and we were home free. So
this has not happened before. For people to say that it has and that it
is not unusual to go into January, factually that is just not true.
So we have special operations, and we have land use agreements. This
is a big one that will ensure special operations forces have sufficient
access to training ranges. The SEALs, the Navy SEALs--I think many of
us have been to the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range in
California, which serves an indispensable role in training the Navy
SEALs for deployment. Failure to adopt the NDAA agreement we are
talking about now will result in sending Navy SEALs to combat with
insufficient training, undermining mission effectiveness and increasing
the risk of losing lives.
So we have every reason to be concerned about this. We have only one
way that we are going to be able to get a defense authorization bill.
If we do not do it, this will be the first year in 52 years that we
have not had one. So that is how serious this is. I do not like the way
it was done, but I can like the end product.
I think the chairman mentioned the sexual assault discussion we have
had. We had the Gillibrand amendment, and we had the McCaskill
amendment. We did not get a chance to talk about those. But we actually
have 27 specific reforms to support victims and encourage sexual
assault reporting, expanding it and so forth. So we have done a lot.
I do not think anyone can argue that we would in any way be better
off not having an authorization bill or just lumping it together and
putting it on a clean CR. That is not any way to do business. It does
not accomplish any of what I just mentioned and that the chairman
mentioned as progress in this bill.
With that, I am happy to join the chairman of the committee in a
bipartisan way to help try to defend America. The first thing we need
to do is to pass our negotiated bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a
colloquy with the chairman and ranking member if necessary as we
discuss this legislation----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Or lack of legislation, which may be unique in the
history of the Senate in that for 51 years this body has passed a
defense authorization bill, gone to conference between the two Houses,
and sent a bill to the President's desk--legislation that I think most
Americans would agree is our first priority, and that is to defend the
security of this Nation.
I guess one of the questions I have for the distinguished chairman of
the committee, and obviously the ranking member, is that by us not
acting on this bill before the end of the year, is it not true, I would
ask Chairman Levin, that we have already done some damage to the
military and our readiness? Is it not also true that in the years that
Senator Levin and I and Senator Inhofe have been together in the Armed
Services Committee, we have never tried to do an authorization bill in
a week? There are too many issues that are worthy of debate and votes
on the part of this body. So is it not true, I would ask Senator Levin,
that if we fail to take up this legislation, we will be embarking into
unknown and uncharted waters because then we will be leaving it, isn't
it true, to various appropriations bills or continuing resolutions or a
patchwork kind of addressing what I would argue--and I do not know how
anyone could dispute--is the most important obligation the Congress of
the United States has; that is, to authorize the provisions in law that
are necessary to defend this Nation? I would ask the Senator from
Michigan those questions.
Mr. LEVIN. The point of the Senator from Arizona is extremely well
taken. There is, relevant to his point, a list of expiring authorities
which we have just received from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs,
General Dempsey. I put that letter in the Record; we got it literally a
few hours ago--listing some of the expiring authorities, including a
number that the Senator mentioned and----
Mr. McCAIN. Would the chairman mention a couple of those?
Mr. LEVIN. Special pay and bonuses, combat pay, travel and
transportation allowances, nonconventional assisted recovery
capability, the authorities to do MILCON, which were mentioned by the
Senator from Oklahoma. It is a long list. There will be a real chasm if
we don't do this this year. You cannot just say: Well, it will go to
next year. Senator Inhofe pointed out, I believe, that in one or two
cases where it actually did get signed in the year after the bill was
passed, it was because there was a veto by a President and the veto
override took place, I believe, in the weeks after January.
But these expiring authorities are very serious. We are going to tell
men and women in combat that there is a gap in their combat pay? We
don't know for sure that it will ever be filled. This is what General
Dempsey mentioned in his letter. He said: Allowing the bill to slip to
January adds yet more uncertainty to the force and further complicates
the duty of our commanders who face shifting global threats. I also
fear that delay may put the entire bill at risk, protracting this
uncertainty and impacting our global influence.
Then he gave us a list of the expiring authorities.
So the Senator from Arizona raises a very critical issue. Now, it is
not desirable for us to pass a bill as we have. But with the help of
the Senator from Arizona when he was the ranking member, we were able,
on two occasions, in a situation where there were objections to
amendments being offered on the Senate floor--I will not go into all
the details, but 2 of the last 5 years we were put in a position where
we could not get the usual course followed, where the bill had a full
amendment process on the Senate floor--it had some, as this bill has,
but not enough time. Then we ran into that wall, and we were able to
work out a bipartisan resolution to present to the Senate, sort of a
virtual conference report--not
[[Page S8551]]
technically a conference report but a bill, a fresh bill, a new bill
which merged and blended the bill that passed the Senate Armed Services
Committee in those 2 years with the bill that passed the House of
Representatives. We then on a bipartisan basis presented those two
bills to the Senate, and they were passed.
Mr. INHOFE. Let me mention a couple of others to the Senator from
Arizona. His specific question is, What expires on December 31? In
addition to the hazard pay that was articulated by the chairman, we
also have the reenlistment bonus. I think any of us who have served in
the military remember that as you get close to your date of discharge,
you make a plan for the future as to what you are going to do in terms
of reenlistment. It is all based on assumptions of reenlistment
bonuses. If all of a sudden they disappear, you could not have that.
What is that going to do to our forces? Impact Aid. Impact aid is
something people do not really think about unless they happen to be in
an area that has a lot of military activity where people have been
taken off the tax rolls. On January 1, impact aid would end.
So, yes, there is a lot of concern over this. We talked for a long
time about what will happen with this bill in terms of military
construction that is partially done or the building of various
platforms. But what would actually happen as of January 1 would be
really a crisis if we were to have to stop these things.
Mr. McCAIN. I should have stated at the beginning that I am very
proud of the leadership that both Senator Inhofe and Senator Levin have
provided to the Armed Services Committee.
I serve on a number of committees and have served on a number of
committees in my time in the Senate. The bipartisanship and cooperative
legislating that is exemplified by both Senators makes me proud and
makes me believe there is still some hope for bipartisanship in the
Senate. Their leadership has been vital in putting together an
authorization bill which is, as we have described, incredibly
important.
I ask both of my colleagues, I am hearing--especially now from this
side of the aisle--it is OK if we let this go over into January. After
all, we only have another week. We have the farm bill, we have the
budget agreement, et cetera. The House, the other side of the Capitol,
is going out of session.
Why isn't it OK to wait until January? We will be back early in
January and work on this legislation then.
I am sure I know the answer, but I ask of the chairman if that isn't
nearly as easy as it sounds, even if, contrary to custom in January, we
would do anything legislatively.
Mr. LEVIN. The Senator points out the reality, which is what is
likely to happen in January. There is another reality that what will
happen in January is it will be very difficult to get to this bill
because of the crushing business of CRs and other crushing business in
January, even if we meet in January.
The shortest answer I could give to my friend from Arizona is the
following: I am in combat. I am in combat somewhere in the world and I
am going to read: Combat pay stops on December 31.
There are dozens of these kinds of authorizations that are listed in
General Dempsey's letter, dozens of them, that just stop on December
31. Take only that one. Think about that and what kind of an impression
we are giving to our men and women who are in combat, in harm's way,
when they read: Combat pay stops.
Yes, maybe it will be extended in January or in February, but that is
actually unsatisfactory. It will be outrageous for us not to pass this
bill.
Mr. McCAIN. Does the Senator from Oklahoma have a response?
Mr. INHOFE. Yes. I wish to note that the average time it takes to
debate on the floor and to pass the NDAA is 9 days. That is the average
over the last 10 years.
As I look at the calendar for January, we return on January 6 and we
have the CR on January 15. We are going to be spending that time on the
CR. Then, of course, we will be faced with the debt ceiling. I don't
see that is going to happen. I think it is going to happen in some
other way, but it is not going to happen in these reforms.
I very much appreciate the Senator from Arizona calling this to
attention, that we can't wait until January. It is not going to work.
We know it is going to expire December 31. We also know it can't happen
in January because there flat isn't time.
Mr. McCAIN. I don't know if my colleagues wish to respond, but I wish
to make two comments: One is that I am deeply disappointed--deeply,
deeply disappointed--in the majority leader for not taking up this
legislation much earlier. The majority controls the calendar. That is
one of the key elements of the majority winning elections and majority
in the Senate.
For us to wait since June, when we passed the bill out of the Armed
Services Committee, until only a short time ago and then only allowing
a few days is a grave disservice--not so much to the Members of the
Senate--and a lack of prioritization of the importance of this
legislation.
I am deeply disappointed the majority leader of the Senate, because
of his manipulation of the calendar, has put us in this position.
Having said that, I spent time--as I know the Senator from Oklahoma
and the Senator from Michigan, our distinguished chairman--in the
company of the men and women who serve. One of our obligations, as
members of the Armed Services Committee, is to spend time with the
military. I know the Senator from Oklahoma and the chairman do as well.
Their morale isn't good. They have seen sequestration take place,
across-the-board cuts that have been done with a meat ax and not a
scalpel.
All three of us would agree there are enormous savings that could be
enacted in our Nation's Defense Department. We haven't even received an
audit of the Defense Department. Year after year we demand that an
audit be conducted by the Department of Defense by a certain year, and
it has never happened.
We are not apologists. In fact, I believe the chairman and the
ranking member have been zealous in their efforts to reduce waste,
mismanagement, and duplication in the Armed Services and the Defense
Department through their work on the Armed Services Committee.
The morale of our men and women who are serving is being harmed. It
is not something that shows up in dollars and cents, but it does show
up over time.
I say to the Senator from Michigan it does show up over time in their
willingness to remain in the military. I was recently in Fort Campbell,
KY, with the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander. We had an excellent
briefing from the colonels, the generals, and the chief master
sergeants of the U.S. Army.
Their unanimous view was that they believe we in the Congress of the
United States are not taking care of them. They have always looked to
us to provide them with the pay, the benefits, the housing, the
equipment, and the training that is necessary to do their job.
They don't believe we are doing that anymore. They believe, when we
enact sequestration with a meat-ax cut across the board--don't ask me
about it. Ask General Odierno and the Chiefs who testified before the
Armed Services Committee about the devastating effect of cuts to
readiness, training, acquisition and, most of all, on the morale of the
men and women who are serving. They literally don't know, some of them,
what they are going to be doing the next day. The next day they don't
know if they will be able to fly their airplanes, run their tanks or
have the exercises that have been planned for months and even years.
They don't know because we are almost day-to-day trying to apportion
funds that are remaining in the most efficient and beneficial way.
I stand before my colleagues in the Senate and the two leaders in the
authorization committee, and I am embarrassed--embarrassed--and a bit
ashamed that we have done this to these good men and women who are
willing to put their lives in harm's way to defend us. We can't even
pass a bill that authorizes what they need to defend this Nation. It is
shameful.
I wish to thank the chairman and ranking member for the hard work
they have done on this legislation and the thousands of hours they have
spent
[[Page S8552]]
on behalf of defending this Nation and the men and women who serve it.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from Arizona for everything he has
been doing for so many decades for this country, including our
committee. It is invaluable. We are going to get this bill passed. That
is our determination.
It will be a shock to every American if we are unable to pass the
Defense authorization bill. It will be totally intolerable. I know
Senator Inhofe and I will help Senator McCain and others get this bill
done this year.
I yield the floor.
Mr. INHOFE. One last comment I wish to make is people listen to us
speak on the floor and do not understand the full impact. I carry this
card with me. The very top military person in the country, the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dempsey, told our committee: We
are putting our military on a path where the force is so degraded and
so unready that it would be immoral to use force.
He is the No. 1 Chief. The No. 2 Chief is Admiral Winnefeld, who
stated that ``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
that we cannot.''
We can't correct all of that with this bill, but we can keep it from
getting worse and get back and do what we have done over the last 52
years and pass the NDAA bill.
I yield the floor and 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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________