[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 180 (Wednesday, December 18, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8957-S8964]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the measure.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Resolved, that the House concur in the Senate amendment to
the title of the bill (H.R. 3304) entitled ``An Act to
authorize and request the President to award the Medal of
Honor to Bennie G. Adkins and Donald P. Sloat of the United
States Army for acts of valor during the Vietnam Conflict and
to authorize the award of the Medal of Honor to certain other
veterans who were previously recommended for award of the
Medal of Honor,'' and be it further
Resolved, that the House concur in the first three Senate
amendments to the text of the aforementioned bill, and be it
further
Resolved, that the House concur in the fourth Senate
amendment to the text of the aforementioned bill, with an
amendment.
Pending:
Reid motion to concur in the amendment of the House to the
amendment of the Senate to the bill, with Reid amendment No.
2552, to change the enactment date.
Reid amendment No. 2553 (to amendment No. 2552), of a
perfecting nature.
Reid motion to refer the message of the House on the bill
to the Committee on Armed Services, with instructions, Reid
amendment No. 2554, to change the enactment date.
Reid amendment No. 2555 (to (the instructions of the motion
to refer) amendment No. 2554), of a perfecting nature.
Reid amendment No. 2556 (to amendment No. 2555), of a
perfecting nature.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Cloture having been invoked, the motion to
refer falls.
The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join Senator Inhofe,
the ranking Republican on our committee, in bringing to the floor the
agreement between the Armed Services Committees of the Senate and the
House on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.
The House passed this bill last week with a vote of 350 to 69, and if
we pass it in the Senate, which I am optimistic now that we will, it
will mark the 53rd year in a row we have enacted this bill that is so
essential to the defense of our Nation and to our men and women in
uniform and their families.
I wish to thank all of the members of the Armed Services Committee
and our staffs. I especially want to thank our subcommittee chairs and
ranking members for the hard work they have done to get us to the
finish line on this bill.
Of course, I thank Senator Inhofe for the close partnership we have
had in leading this committee. We have both had the benefit of a strong
relationship
[[Page S8958]]
with the chairman and ranking member of the House Armed Services
Committee, Buck McKeon and Adam Smith, in our endeavor.
I share the disappointment of Senators with our inability to vote on
more amendments when our committee bill was brought to the Senate floor
a few weeks ago. Senator Inhofe and I spent a week on the Senate floor
before Thanksgiving trying to bring up more amendments and to have them
debated and voted on.
We tried to reach agreement to limit consideration to defense-related
amendments, but we were unable to do that. We tried to consent to vote
on two sexual assault amendments, the Gillibrand amendment and the
McCaskill amendment, which had been fully debated, but we could not get
consent to do that. We tried to get consent to adopt a package of 39
amendments that had been cleared on both sides, but we were unable to
do even that.
It then became clear, given the Senate schedule, that our only hope
of enacting a defense bill this year was to negotiate a new bill with
the House Armed Services Committee on the basis of two bills: one that
was reported out of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and, two, the
bill that was passed by the House of Representatives, and then we
decided we would seek enactment of a new bill in both Houses.
That new bill passed the House without amendment. If we fail to pass
the same bill, there will be no National Defense Authorization Act this
year, with the result being we would deny the Department of Defense
vital authorities, we would undermine congressional oversight of the
military, and we would fail in our duty to provide our men and women in
uniform the support they need and deserve.
The bill before us is not a Democratic bill and it is not a
Republican bill. It is a bipartisan, bicameral defense bill. It is a
good bill and one that deserved the strong support it received in the
House of Representatives and that I hope will receive a strong vote in
the Senate tomorrow.
The bill includes hundreds of important provisions to ensure that the
Department can carry out its essential national defense missions.
Here are just a few examples: Our bill extends the Department of
Defense authority to pay out combat pay and hardship duty pay.
The bill extends supplemental impact aid to help local school
districts educate military children.
The bill extends existing military land withdrawals at China Lake,
Chocolate Mountain, and Limestone Hills that would otherwise expire,
leaving the military without critical testing and training
capabilities.
The bill includes a new land withdrawal, which is critical to the
Marines, to expand its training area at 29 Palms.
Our bill provides needed funding 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.
Our bill enables the Department of Defense to save more than $1
billion by authorizing a number of multiyear contracts.
Our bill includes more than 30 provisions, as our Presiding Officer
well knows, to address the problem of sexual assault in the military.
For example, we provide every military sexual assault survivor a
special victim's counsel--a lawyer who works not for commanders, not
for prosecutors or defense attorneys or a court but for the victim.
We include strong new protections for survivors, for those people who
have been victims, making it a crime under the Uniform Code of Military
Justice to retaliate against a servicemember who reports a sexual
assault and requiring that the Department of Defense inspector general
review and investigate any allegation of such retaliation.
Our bill requires that commanders who become aware of a reported
sexual assault immediately forward that information to criminal
investigators.
Our bill ends the ability of commanders to modify findings and
convictions for sexual assaults and other serious crimes.
Our bill provides that any decision by a commander not to prosecute a
sexual assault complaint undergoes an automatic review by a higher
command authority, which in nearly all cases would mean a general or a
flag officer.
Our bill includes the Boxer amendment to make the article 32 process
more like a grand jury proceeding in which the purpose is to determine
probable cause rather than the current process which is used as a
discovery tool by the defense.
While this change is not limited to sexual assault cases, it will
mean the victim of a sexual assault will not have to appear in person
and be subjected to cross-examination by the defense.
As Senators are aware, we were unable to vote on either the
Gillibrand amendment or the McCaskill amendment on the floor because of
procedural objections. I hope the Senate will be able to consider and
vote on both of these important initiatives early next year.
Again, relative to sexual assault, our bill does contain
groundbreaking reforms that will provide much needed assistance to
victims of sexual assault while also helping establish a climate in the
military in which there is no tolerance for sexual assault or for
retaliation against those who report it.
With regard to Guantanamo, the bill we reported out of the Armed
Services Committee included both language making it possible to bring
detainees to the United States for trial and a provision making it
easier to transfer detainees back to their home countries. The full
Senate voted to retain these provisions by a 55-to-43 vote when the
committee-reported bill was on the floor.
The compromise we reached includes the House prohibition on bringing
Gitmo detainees to the United States but follows the Senate language
generally, which provides our military greater flexibility to transfer
Gitmo detainees to third countries. As a result, our military will be
able to make decisions about how long to keep detainees and under what
circumstances to transfer them to third countries on the basis of a
real-world evaluation of risks rather than the current law, which
provides an arbitrary and extreme checklist of certification
requirements.
We recently received letters from our senior military leaders urging
us to enact the Defense authorization bill before we leave this year.
For example, GEN Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs,
wrote that the authorities included in this bill ``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.''
GEN Ray Odierno, the Army Chief of Staff, told us:
From authorities that help us prevent and respond to sexual
assault, restore readiness, allow for continuous work in our
industrial base, and start important military construction
projects, this NDAA is critical to your Soldiers, their
Families, and the numerous local communities that support our
installations.
ADM Jonathan Greenert, Chief of Naval Operations, stated that pushing
the bill into the next year ``would mean critical authorities expire,
which would exacerbate my readiness challenge and jeopardize our
commitment to our service men and women.''
Gen. James Amos, Commandant of the Marine Corps, wrote:
Without an NDAA, landmark legislation transforming the
Uniform Code of Military Justice and improving the support
provided to victims of sexual assault will be lost.
He continued:
I am also concerned about the adverse impact on logistical
support for Coalition forces in Afghanistan, our ability to
retrograde military equipment along the Northern Distribution
Network, and the impact on Coalition Support Funds that
support ground transportation of supplies and retrograde of
equipment through Pakistan.
Gen. Mark Welsh, the Air Force Chief of Staff wrote:
The FY 14 NDAA contains critical authorities that enable us
to protect the American people while keeping our promise to
our active duty, Guard, Reserve, and civilian airmen. If this
important legislation is not enacted, I worry about
significant impacts to Air Force operations that could
jeopardize the missions we are tasked to perform. . . .
Simply put, we cannot operate effectively without your help
and without the direction that the NDAA provides.
Gen. Frank Grass, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, told us:
Failure to enact an NDAA would break faith with our Army
and Air Guardsmen by not re-authorizing special pay and
bonuses.
[[Page S8959]]
Also, authorities contained in the NDAA are crucial to
maintaining the training, equipment, and opportunities
necessary for the National Guard to remain an operational
force ready to respond to domestic and overseas
contingencies.
I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in full in the
Record.
.Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
Washington, DC, December 9, 2013.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Majority Leader: 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.
Enclosure.
LIST OF EXPIRING AUTHORITIES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title Expiration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authority Issues:
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund................. 9/30/2013
Authority for Joint Task Forces to Provide 9/30/2013
Support 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 9/30/2013
Counter-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 9/30/2013
Afghanistan.....................................
Authority to Establish a Program to Develop and 9/30/2013
Carry Out Infrastructure Projects in Afghanistan
Logistical Support for Coalition Forces 9/30/2013
Supporting Operations in Afghanistan............
Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund (DoS)............ 9/30/2013
Task Force on Business and Stability Operations 9/30/2013
in Afghanistan and Economic Transition Plan and
Economic Strategy for Afghanistan...............
Enhancement of Authorities Relating to DoD 9/30/2013
Regional 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 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 12/31/2013
Pay 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 12/31/2013
CRAF Carriers...................................
Authority to Provide Temporary Increase in Rates 12/31/2013
of 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States Army,
The Chief of Staff,
December 10, 2013.
Hon. Harry Reid
Senate Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Leader Reid: Today, your Army has close to 70,000
Soldiers deployed around the world with nearly 40,000 of
those brave men and women in combat in Afghanistan and
several thousand more in hazardous duty postings such as the
Persian Gulf and Horn of Africa. With many of the
authorizations for their support and the support to their
families set to expire later this month, I believe it is
imperative that the Congress pass the National Defense
Authorizations Act this December. Our Soldiers and their
families require the many authorities that your bill, when
passed, will provide for them to accomplish their missions
overseas and here at home. For an Army still very much at
war, it is vital that the Congress not allow these critical
defense authorizations to lapse.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has laid out the
impacts of a lapse in defense authorizations on our Combatant
Commanders' operations and on deployed troops. The impacts of
not having a defense authorization bill passed in this
calendar year will have a significant impact at home as well
From authorities that help us prevent and respond to sexual
assault, restore readiness, allow for continuous work in our
industrial base, and start important military construction
projects, this NDAA is critical to your Soldiers, their
Families, and the numerous local communities that support our
installations. As a nation, we cannot afford to allow those
authorities to lapse and delay the implementation of new
authorities designed to make our National defense stronger
and more effective.
With great respect, I urge you to find a way to work with
the House in the days remaining prior to the Holiday Recess
and pass the NDAA. Given these authorities, I look forward to
returning to Congress in the early spring with Secretary
McHugh and testifying on the Army's Posture.
Thank you for your continued support of our Army, Soldiers,
Civilians, and Veterans.
Sincerely,
Raymond T. Odierno,
General, United States Army.
____
Chief of Naval Operations,
December 12, 2013.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Reid: I am writing to request the expeditious
passage of the FY14 National Defense Authorization Act.
Early in my tenure as Chief of Naval Operations, I
established three tenets for the Navy: ``Warfighting First,''
``Operate Forward,'' and ``Be Ready.'' In support of these
three tenets, I ask that you give every consideration to
completing the FY14 NDAA before the end of the year. Passage
of the bill will give me the authorities needed to support
our Sailors through special pays, allowances, and enlistment
and retention bonuses. Sailor readiness is the foundation of
Fleet readiness. Support to our Civilians, Sailors, and their
Families is central to Sailor readiness. Deferring the NDAA
into calendar year 2014 would mean critical authorities
expire, which would exacerbate my readiness challenge and
jeopardize our commitment to our service men and women.
Thank you in advance for your efforts and persistence in
passing the FY14 defense authorization bill as soon as
feasible.
Jonathan W. Greenert.
____
December 9, 2013.
Dear Leader Reid, I am writing you to express my strongest
support for the passage of the National Defense Authorization
Act (NDAA) prior to the end of this year This year's NDAA
contains authorities critical to our Nation's defense that
enable us to protect the American people while keeping our
promises to our Marines, Sailors and Civilian Marines. I
believe that passage of a National Defense Authorization Act
prior to the end of the current calendar year is a national
security imperative.
As a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I am gravely
concerned that, without timely passage of the NDAA, critical
authorities will expire. Without an NDAA, landmark
legislation transforming the Uniform Code of Military Justice
and improving the support provided to victims of sexual
assault will be lost. I am also concerned about the adverse
impact on logistical support for Coalition forces in
Afghanistan, our ability to retrograde military equipment
along the Northern Distribution Network, and the impact on
Coalition Support Funds that support ground transportation of
supplies and retrograde of equipment through Pakistan.
As the Commandant of the Marine Corps, I am concerned that
failure to pass an NDAA will break faith with our Marines,
Sailors and Civilian Marines on authorizations for their pay
and benefits. Also, hard-won gains on the Twenty-nine Palms
land expansion Senator Feinstein worked so hard over the past
seven years to accomplish will be threatened.
I thank you for your willingness to reach across the aisle
in a timely and creative fashion in order to pass this vital
piece of legislation prior to the end of the year. Your
continued support for the men and woman that wear our
nation's uniform will add certainty to the force and simplify
the duties of commanders around the globe who are providing
for our common defense.
Again, thank you for all you do to support your Marines and
Sailors. I
remain . . .
Semper Fidelis,
James F. Amos,
General, U.S. Marine Corps,
Commandant of the Marine Corps.
____
Department of the Air Force,
Washington, DC, December 12, 2013.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Leader Reid: I write to urge Congress to pass the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (FY14
NDAA) prior to the end of this calendar year. The FY14 NDAA
contains critical authorities that enable us to protect the
American people while keeping promises to our active duty,
Guard, Reserve, and civilian Airmen. If this important
legislation is not enacted, I worry about significant impacts
to Air Force operations that could jeopardize the missions we
are tasked to perform.
In addition to serious operational impacts, I am concerned
that failure to pass an NDAA, would break faith with Airmen
as authorizations for pay and benefits expire. As you know,
today's Air Force faces many challenges, and we depend on the
NDAA to provide policy direction on a variety of matters,
ranging from sexual assault prevention and response to
adjusting force structure and
[[Page S8960]]
manpower to meet future threats, all while complying with
budget constraints. Simply put, we cannot operate effectively
without your help and without the direction that the NDAA
provides.
Thank you for your attention to our concerns and for
considering action on the FY14 NDAA before this congressional
session comes to a close. We are grateful for your continued
support for all of the men and women who wear our Nation's
uniform.
Sincerely,
Mark A. Welsh, III,
General, USAF, Chief of Staff.
____
National Guard Bureau,
Defense Pentagon,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Majority Leader: I write to you to urge completion
of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). I
understand you have received similar letters from the Army
and Air Force Chiefs of Staff, highlighting the impact a
lapse of authorization would have on federalized National
Guardsmen. As Chief of the National Guard Bureau, I want to
echo these sentiments as well as point out the harmful
effects on non-federalized National Guardsmen, military
technicians, and their families. Specifically, failure to
enact an NDAA would break faith with our Army and Air
Guardsmen by not re-authorizing special pay and bonuses.
Also, authorities contained in the NDAA are crucial to
maintaining the training, equipment, and opportunities
necessary for the National Guard to remain an operational
force ready to respond to domestic and overseas
contingencies.
I truly appreciate your efforts to pass an NDAA and
Appropriations Bill that support and enable our military to
defend our Nation and keep it safe. Thank you for your
continued support of all National Guardsmen, civilians, and
their families.
Sincerely,
Frank J. Grass,
General, U.S. Army, Chief,
National Guard Bureau.
Mr. LEVIN. Finally, we have managed to pass a national defense
authorization bill for 52 straight years, including a number of recent
years when we were unable to pass a bill in the Senate, and therefore
unable to go to a traditional conference. That is not best way to
proceed. I think we all acknowledge that.
Our troops, their families, and our Nation's security, deserve a
defense bill, and what we are offering to the Senate is the only
practical way to get a bill passed and enacted.
Again, before I yield the floor, I wish to thank Senator Inhofe and
his staff who have joined so closely with myself and all of the members
of the Armed Services Committee and our staff to make it possible to
get, as I said before, this close to the finish line.
I am confident we are going to cross that finish line because of the
hard work of our members. I want to especially point out our
subcommittee chairs and the ranking members as well as all of the
members of the Armed Services Committee, including Senator Blumenthal,
who at this moment is presiding over the Senate and has personally
played such an important role in getting us to where we are.
With that, and again with my thanks to Senator Inhofe, I yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first, I wish to say the same thing. It
sounds as though it is all rehearsed, but it is not. It is actually a
reality that I have always felt I could call and talk to the chairman
about things we might not have in common--although I can only remember
one issue where we were on opposite sides, but we have our reasons for
being on opposite sides. Unless we work those out, then between John
Bonsell and Peter, it is always a joy to be able to call and know I am
reaching the top and we are going to be able to come up with a
decision.
I talked to a lot of the Republicans who voted against this, and I
want the chairman to be aware of this. I think almost all of them who
voted against it voted that way for one reason; that is, the process.
They wanted to have amendments. They are entitled to amendments. I
think we said that over the last 10 years we have averaged 9 days of
debate on this most significant bill each year. That is an average. We
have had about 100 amendments on average. So that is something both the
chairman and I agree should have happened, but it just didn't happen.
We can't really blame one side more than the other.
Then, of course, when the nuclear option came, that got things pretty
hostile here, and unfortunately what suffered was our bill.
I feel strongly that we have a good bill. In fact, a lot of people
don't know how this process works when we cannot get a bill through the
House and/or the Senate to make it a reality, and I had to go through
this one year when I was on the House Armed Services Committee. Then
they had the big four; that is, the chairman and the ranking member of
the Senate and the chairman and the ranking member of the House, get
together and put this together. That may not be the process--in fact,
it is not the process we wanted--but the choice became, do we have a
bill or do we not have a bill, and we have gotten down to that choice.
What I tried to do, and I failed--I am embarrassed to say I failed
with many of our Republicans in explaining to them what would happen if
we don't have a bill. I started writing what the chairman talked about
that is in this bill, and I couldn't keep up. He was too fast. But I
would like to mention a couple of things that I think perhaps were not
mentioned.
Of course, we did cover Gitmo, and I look at it just a little bit
differently than the chairman does. I like the restoration of the 1-
year prohibition on the transferring of the detainees to the United
States. That was a 12-month provision we had last time that we tried to
get in, and we actually addressed this in our bill. But in this bill--
the substitute bill we just voted on--I think it is very important and
something I feel very strongly about.
On the sexual assault, we had both Senators McCaskill and Gillibrand,
and I recall both of them saying: Well, this isn't everything I wanted.
But they both thought it sure was a lot better than not having a bill.
So I think we have done a good job there.
I always pick out one area that shows how much this would cost. If we
look at the CVN-78--75 percent finished right now, $12 billion spent on
it now--and if we didn't have this bill, I am sure we would try to do
something, but work would stop, and people would be laid off. It would
have then cost a lot more to wind things up and get back into it. When
I say ``a lot more,'' we are talking about millions of dollars more. So
that is one of the great victories we have.
The one aspect so many of my constituents are concerned about that I
think needs to be called to everyone's attention that is in this bill
is the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty. I remember back when we had the bill
that didn't ultimately pass, but we had an all-night session, and at 5
o'clock in the morning I passed my amendment that would preclude us
from getting involved in that treaty. This was after our Secretary of
State had already signed this treaty. We had 53 votes. We had all the
Republicans and six of the Democrats vote in favor of that. That didn't
pass, but it is very important that we address that, not just to
protect Second Amendment rights but also to protect our ability to help
our allies without having to go through the United Nations. And we have
that provision in here, which is very significant.
On the BRAC, BRAC is controversial. I was opposed to the last BRAC
round. My feeling at that time was that we were getting the force
structure down artificially low, and I didn't feel comfortable bringing
down the infrastructure to meet that because I was hoping we would be
able to--that is the same reason I would not want to have a BRAC round
right now. We have never been in such a critical fiscal condition in
supporting our military as we are today.
One thing that is certain about BRAC rounds is that we can debate
about how much ultimately they will save, but everybody knows what it
costs in the first 5 years, and these are the first 5 years that we
really can't afford it, particularly the first year.
The last thing I would mention is something I felt more strongly
about than I think most of the rest of them did, and that is how much
we have spent on these drop-in fuels, the biofuels, and we have
language here that would say we would not do it unless they are cost-
competitive. That is a huge issue to me personally.
The last two I would like to mention--people say in my conference, a
lot of them are saying: Well, what is going to happen on December 31 if
we don't pass the bill? I have a long list of expirations here that I
ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record. I will only
mention three of them. One is on the aviation officer retention bonus.
[[Page S8961]]
I think we all know and most of us believe that we made a mistake in
April when we shut down some of our squadrons and about a third of our
fighter squadrons for a period of about 3 months. General Walsh
presented a very persuasive case that it costs a lot more to get them
back to current, as we started to do in July, than the money that was
saved during the time they were down. I think we lost a lot of aviators
at that time because they were grounded, they weren't flying, and they
just decided they would go into the private sector.
If we take away the aviation officer retention bonus, that is going
to accelerate the lost number of people who would otherwise stay in the
military. That would have gone away on the 31st of December. I don't
know how many of the aviators we would lose, but I do know this: It is
a $25,000 bonus, and the difference between retraining and retaining is
huge. We can retain them, if the bonus would influence them, for
$25,000, but retraining, to get to the optimum--the first level being
the F-22--is about $7.5 million, but there is another $9 million to get
to the top proficiency. That means $17 million as opposed to $25,000.
So I think we need to in the future always keep track of retraining and
retaining.
The health care professional bonus would end on December 31. Why is
that important? Because a lot of these people who are taking care of
our wounded warriors--not just at the hospitals but also after they
leave--have special pay to take care of our wounded warriors, those who
have made the sacrifices, and that would have ended on December 31.
The reenlistment bonus for Active members would also end. I remember
from my military days that when people were getting ready to leave,
they looked at the bonus, and that is there to encourage them to stay.
So it is not just aviators; it is the ground guys and gals too.
So we have done a lot. I really appreciate that opportunity.
The last thing I will say--and I will ask my staff to put up the
picture--this is my appeal to the minority leader and the majority
leader. We could play the game and extend this and be here until
midnight, I guess, on Thursday night. It happens that tomorrow is my
54th wedding anniversary, and I would really like to ask both the
majority and the minority if we couldn't yield back a little bit of
time. We know we are going to have the votes for this. I would sure
like help. Those 20 kids and grandkids are waiting for me for a big
dinner on our 54th wedding anniversary tomorrow night. So have mercy,
give us a break, and let's try to get this voted on and go home. And
Merry Christmas to everybody.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
NDAA Authorities Expiring on 31 Dec
Travel and transportation allowances
Military Special Pay & Bonuses provided by FY13 NDAA
Reenlistment bonus of active members
Healthcare Professional bonus and special pays
Reserve forces bonus and special pays
Nuclear Officers Bonus and special pays
Assignment pay or special duty pay
Skill incentive pay or proficiency bonus
Retention incentives for critical military skill or
assigned to high priority units
Aviation officer retention bonus
Assignment incentive pay
Enlisted bonus
Accession bonus for new officers in critical skills
Incentive bonus for conversion to military occupational
specialty to ease personnel shortage
Incentive bonus for transfer between armed forces
Accession bonus for officer candidates
Mr. INHOFE. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I surely join Senator Inhofe in the plea
that his time and much of the time between now and the 30-hour end
point be yielded back. Somehow or other, I hope our leaders can manage
that for not just Senator Inhofe's 54th wedding anniversary--I thought
I was a heroic figure; my wife is more heroic than I--because we have
been married 52 years.
Mr. INHOFE. Oh, you will make it.
Mr. LEVIN. She is the hero. But in any event, I surely join in that
request.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a full list of our
minority and majority staff who have given so much of themselves and
their families be printed in the Record, including Peter Levine, John
Bonsell, and then all of the other staff members, both the majority and
minority staff.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Peter K. Levine, Staff Director; John A. Bonsell, Minority
Staff Director; Daniel C. Adams, Minority Associate Counsel;
Adam J. Barker, Professional Staff Member; Steven M. Barney,
Minority Counsel; June M. Borawski, Printing and Documents
Clerk; Leah C. Brewer, Nominations and Hearings Clerk; Joseph
M. Bryan, Professional Staff Member; William S. Castle,
Minority General Counsel; Jonathan D. Clark, Counsel;
Samantha L. Clark, Minority Associate Counsel; Allen M.
Edwards, Professional Staff Member; Jonathan S. Epstein,
Counsel; Gabriella E. Fahrer, Counsel; Richard W. Fieldhouse,
Professional Staff Member.
Lauren M. Gillis, Staff Assistant; Thomas W. Goffus,
Professional Staff Member; Creighton Greene, Professional
Staff Member; Ozge Guzelsu, Counsel; Daniel J. Harder, Staff
Assistant; Alexandra M. Hathaway, Staff Assistant; Ambrose R.
Hock, Professional Staff Member; Gary J. Howard, Systems
Administrator; Michael J. Kuiken, Professional Staff Member;
Kathleen A. Kulenkampff, Staff Assistant; Mary J. Kyle,
Legislative Clerk; Anthony J. Lazarski, Professional Staff
Member; Gerald J. Leeling, General Counsel; Daniel A. Lerner,
Professional Staff Member; Gregory R. Lilly, Minority Clerk;
Jason W. Maroney, Counsel; Thomas K. McConnell, Professional
Staff Member.
Mariah K. McNamara, Special Assistant to the Staff
Director; Williamn G. P. Monahan, Counsel; Natalie M.
Nicolas, Minority Staff Assistant; Lucian L. Niemeyer,
Professional Staff Member; Michael J. Noblet, Professional
Staff Member; Cindy Pearson, Assistant Chief Clerk and
Security Manager; Roy F. Phillips, Professional Staff Member;
John L. Principato, Staff Assistant; John H. Quirk V,
Professional Staff Member; Robie I. Samanta Roy, Professional
Staff Member; Brendan J. Sawyer, Staff Assistant; Travis E.
Smith, Chief Clerk; Robert M. Soofer, Professional Staff
Member; William K. Sutey, Professional Staff Member; Barry C.
Walker, Security Officer.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I again thank all of the members of our
committee and staff who worked--I don't know how to describe the effort
that every year is put into our authorization bill. It is a round
number--52, maybe now 53 years. It is a big number. It doesn't say what
each year--each month of every year--our staffs put into the annual
authorization bill. It is an extraordinary effort that they make.
Senator Inhofe and our colleagues and I watch them really with
amazement because of what they give up to accomplish this. We are not
quite there yet. We have to have a final passage vote. I hope it comes
a lot earlier than late tomorrow.
energy savings performance contracting
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, the Department of Defense is the largest
single consumer of facilities energy in the Nation and spends more than
$4 billion a year to power military installations. Energy management is
very important to DoD's mission, both as a matter of conservation and
the proper stewardship of funds provided by Congress.
In recent years, the Department of Defense has made significant
progress in reducing energy use on military installations. In fiscal
year 2012, the Department achieved a 17.7 percent reduction in energy
use from the fiscal year 2003 baseline established by law in the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007. In addition to direct
investment, the Department's use of energy savings performance
contracting and utility energy savings contracting has historically
played an important role in the achievement of the Department's
facility energy management objectives. Energy Savings Performance
Contracts, commonly known as ESPCs, provide private sector financing
for energy improvements at government facilities, with that investment
paid back over time from the agency's utility bill savings. As part of
a broad administration effort established in 2011 to improve Federal
energy efficiency, the Department has committed to award $1.2 billion
in performance-based contracts by the end of 2013.
I would pose a question to my colleague, the ranking member of the
full committee and a manager of the bill, Senator Inhofe, who has long
been a supporter of performance contracting, about this matter and
whether he believes the Department can do more.
[[Page S8962]]
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire,
the chair of the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support, for
her question. I am a strong supporter of energy performance contracts
that provide maximum savings for the Federal Government. It is my
understanding that the components of the Department of Defense have
identified additional opportunities for energy conservation and energy
demand management that could benefit from performance contracting,
However, in order to maximize taxpayer savings, it is vital that DoD
contract for those projects that provide the greatest return on
investment as opposed to directing the use of certain mandated energy
sources without an assessment of relative costs over the life cycle of
the project. I join with the Senator from New Hampshire to strongly
encourage the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the military
departments to increase the use and streamline the administration of
energy savings performance and utility energy savings contracting
vehicles that will incorporate the most efficient and effective energy
systems in order to maximize the reduction of operational costs, to
conserve energy resources, and to improve the efficiency of building
systems. I hope my colleague will join with me as part of our oversight
responsibilities for the committee that we ensure energy performance
contracts carried out by the Department of Defense meet the intent of
the President's executive order of December 2011 to maximize cost
reductions for the Federal Government by promoting projects to offer
the greatest return on investment.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma and I
look forward to working with him to improve DoD's management practices
in this area.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I too wish to congratulate the Senator from
Oklahoma and Kay for their 54th wedding anniversary. It is quite a
landmark for an outstanding couple. I hope they get to celebrate on
their day. I think that probably, if we knew the final vote on this was
going to be the end of the whole process before Christmas, it probably
would include time yielded back. But if there are going to be a whole
bunch of things thrown in that really have relatively little importance
before the end of the year, the Senator probably won't get his wish. So
I am hoping we can end it with this bill.
I rise to express my disappointment that this National Defense
Authorization Act on which we will soon be having a final vote is the
product of another deal instead of the result of discussion, debate,
and amendment process on the floor. Once again, the Senate has failed
to do its job. The Senate majority leader has blocked all but two
amendments to this NDAA from consideration, and those were to prevent
any other amendments from happening. That is not right. That is not the
way we used to do it. If we want to know what is wrong with the Senate
and why people of all political persuasions are upset with Congress,
that is a big part of the answer right there--no amendments allowed.
Here we are at the end of the year--this didn't have to come at the
end of the year. In fact, I never remember us debating it this late in
the year.
Incidentally, this is the only committee that gets a bill every year.
The other committees have to fight for some time and hopefully have a
persuasive enough bill to get it. But every year I have been here, we
have debated this National Defense Authorization Act, and it is
important.
There are two primary things we are charged with, and one is spending
for the United States and the other is national defense. And this is
about the national defense. It shouldn't be crowded into 30 hours or
even 1 week. There ought to be the ability to express what we think is
important dealing with national defense, and we are not being allowed
to do that.
This is an important bill for our country. There are a lot of
important issues in it that we need to discuss. We haven't considered
issues relating to our nuclear deterrent, to privacy concerns related
to the National Security Administration, to detention of U.S. citizens,
and the need to address sexual assault in the military, or a number of
other important issues. In the past, we have spent multiple weeks on
the Defense bill and considered dozens of amendments. That is what we
should be doing this year too.
I understand we have come up against this December 31 deadline and
how critical that is. That should not have happened. Our national
security needs to be fully debated, and it needs to be debated by the
whole Senate.
Every voice needs to be heard. That means every constituent out there
whom we represent has to have at least an opportunity to have their
interests reflected in this national bill. We all have some military in
our States, and it is very important. That is how it is supposed to
happen, and that is the way the Senate does its best work.
One of the things that have been holding it up, of course, are the
nominations. Most of those nominations did not have urgency to them.
They could have been done next year without hurting the United States
at all--not the case with the National Defense Authorization Act. So we
do not have priorities on what we are debating around here, and then we
have limits because of the timeframe. It is not right.
One of those important issues we are skipping over is the nuclear
deterrent. I offered several amendments on this issue because I believe
the administration is playing a dangerous game with national security.
The solution I proposed in my amendment was simple and straightforward.
It would have ensured that American citizens and our allies would not
be harmed by this administration's bad policy decisions--both today and
for years to come--by ensuring that any further reductions in our
nuclear arsenal could not be done by the administration unilaterally.
As background, here in the Senate I have the honor of representing
the city of Cheyenne, WY, which is the home of F.E. Warren Air Force
Base and the 90th ICBM Missile Wing. Those who proudly serve there have
an awesome responsibility and a history of doing excellent work. We
have entrusted the most powerful of our weaponry to the best, to the
most capable of managing these weapons in a thoroughly professional and
reliable manner. Every day, the top-notch men and women who are
stationed at F.E. Warren work together to maintain the world's most
powerful military force, our ICBMs. Seven days a week, 24 hours a day,
they stand guard to ensure our safety and our freedom. They maintain a
constant vigil from which they can never stand down because their
mission is that critical. In a very real sense, that is why each one of
us is able to sleep well at night. Moms and dads and grandpas and
grandmas all across America know that when they tuck their kids in at
night, someone is on duty and will continue to be watching through the
lonely hours of the night to make sure their little ones are safe and
secure.
Unfortunately, there are those in the administration who take the
contributions of our military for granted. They do not have the sense
of history that is needed to fully appreciate why these weapons were
designed and put into operation in the first place. They do not see how
much they are needed today and will still be needed tomorrow to ensure
our future. They do not fully appreciate the key role they have played
in the past either. They seem to think that nuclear weapons are part of
a bygone era, a relic of the past that has not been needed since the
Cold War ended.
The adoption of such a position is dangerous because it takes our
position of strength for granted. What they fail to understand is the
power of this deterrent and how it has kept us safe for decades. In the
past, any nation that gave even a casual thought to threatening us or
trying to do us harm had to quickly shelve those plans when the
realization of what they would be up against was made clear. That is,
after all, the point of having these weapons. That is one of the
reasons why they are necessary. They have served us well ever since
they were first deployed.
The administration's views on our nuclear deterrent should not come
as a surprise to any of us who have watched the development of these
ideas when they were first offered for consideration. We have seen
President Obama promise to do all he can to reduce our nuclear
arsenal--step by step. First, he rammed the New START treaty through
the Senate by promising commitments that he ultimately did not
[[Page S8963]]
keep. One of those was the promise to modernize our nuclear force,
which we are still waiting on. I voted against ratification of the New
START treaty because I believe maintaining a strong nuclear force is a
critical part of protecting our country. It still is.
The Obama administration has stated its intention to reduce the
number of deployed nuclear warheads to as few as 1,000, which would be
550 fewer than is allowed under that New START treaty. What is more, in
the factsheet on the Nuclear Posture Review Implementation Study, it
states that the President could go outside the formal treaty-making
process and reduce our nuclear arsenal unilaterally. That has ``bad
idea'' written all over it. It means the administration can still make
drastic nuclear reductions even if Russia will not agree to do the
same. Does that make any sense? Should we just bargain with ourselves?
That is something which should give us all pause and encourage us to go
on record as to what needs to be done to keep our people safe.
In case you think I am overreacting, last year President Obama was
caught on an open microphone promising former Russian President Dmitry
Medvedev that he would have more flexibility to negotiate on nuclear
defense issues after his election. Those comments are still before us,
and they do not exactly instill trust and confidence that the President
will not choose to bypass Congress and act unilaterally on nuclear
reductions.
All we have to do is look around the world to see why we should be
concerned. Everywhere we look, nations are looking to increase, not
decrease, their weaponry. In fact, as the President makes plans for
reducing our own nuclear arsenal, it appears Russia and China are
looking for ways to modernize and update their own arsenals.
These are dangerous weapons, and we need to be certain we do
everything we can to ensure that they continue to be fully monitored.
They must never be used. But it seems to me that the best way to make
certain they are never used is to be certain that no one would ever
dare to think of using them against us or our allies.
The concerns I have that some other country might use these weapons
first are increased, not decreased, when I see the administration
sending signals that they might not wait for everyone to disarm; they
might do it on their own first. It would be like taking your own team
off the field and allowing the other team to score at will. Relying on
the good will of the opponent rarely works, and it is clearly not a
good strategy.
One final point. We are not the only ones who are relying on our
nuclear arsenal for our safety and security. There are other countries
that rely on the United States for their national security. If we make
it clear that we are dropping out of this vital source of our strength
as a nation, this could encourage other countries to increase their own
nuclear capability because they will suspect that they can no longer
rely on us. Increasing the number of nations that have a nuclear
capability is clearly something we dare not encourage.
Simply put, this is exactly what my amendment was trying to stop. It
would have ensured that any further reductions in our nuclear arsenal
could not be done on a unilateral basis by the President alone.
Instead, any changes would have to follow the application of the treaty
system, which would give the Senate an opportunity to weigh in on this
matter again when a proposal in the form of a treaty is brought before
us for our consideration.
Just as ridiculous, the President threatened a veto if the amendment
were in the bill. Now, unfortunately, due to the majority leader's
actions, we are not going to be able to debate this and other important
issues like I mentioned before--the privacy issue at the National
Security Agency, the NSA listening in on telephone calls; the detention
of U.S. citizens; addressing sexual assault in the military; and a
number of others.
For all of these reasons, I cannot support moving forward on the
Defense bill. I hope that on our next Defense authorization bill we
will all recognize the importance of being allowed to fully debate
these issues, so we will not wait until the end of the year when there
is this looming deadline regarding bonuses, so our men and women in
uniform can continue to fulfill their mission of keeping our Nation
safe, secure, and free, knowing what their future is.
Something as important as the Defense authorization bill must not be
drafted or taken up for a vote until it has made it through the whole
legislative process. The legislative process was created for a reason,
and we do ourselves and our constituents and those who serve in our
Armed Forces a disservice when we fail to make full use of it. The bill
has not made it through each step of the process. In my opinion, that
is a fatal flaw. We can do better. We need to do better. We better do
better in the future.
I yield the floor.
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. SCHATZ. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCHATZ. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business
for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Budget
Mr. SCHATZ. The budget agreement that we passed is an important step
forward for our country and for our government. I know Chairman Patty
Murray worked tremendously hard to get to a conference in the first
place and to reach this agreement with the House. I commend Chairman
Murray for all of her work.
The U.S. Government has been lurching from crisis to manufactured
crisis and using short-term stopgaps to fund the government. The threat
of a shutdown and the lack of uncertainty has hurt our economy and has
eroded the American people's confidence in our ability to solve
problems.
It is our job to produce a budget and to figure out a way to work
together and not shut the government down. That is what the people
expect of responsible leaders in a divided government.
This budget agreement is the way to move forward. It ends the
reckless threats of government shutdown and lays a clear path to end
sequestration.
The sequester hit my home State of Hawaii very hard. The across-the-
board arbitrary cuts from sequester have been devastating for our
middle-class families and to our economy.
I wish to read a letter that I received from a professor at the
University of Hawaii at Manoa in September.
He wrote:
I was contacted today, as I often am, by a student wanting
to join our graduate program in the Department of Geology and
Geophysics.
Unfortunately, I had to tell this student that funding for
accepting new students is low right now, which may make it
impossible for me to accept him as a graduate student,
despite his excellent qualifications.
This exchange reminded me that one source of the problem is
the budget cuts to NSF (and other science funding agencies)
that are the result of sequestration. The current situation
is having the following impacts, which are happening right
now at research centers nationwide, including UH Manoa:
Many scientific workers are being laid off or are not being
hired--this includes individuals in Honolulu.
Research groups are being forced to cut infrastructure that
took decades to build.
Some scientific discoveries that could help our society are
not being made.
Some bright young students are not being given
opportunities to advance their scientific careers.
I think that this last point is the saddest result because,
it negatively impacts the hopes and dreams of many young
people.
Furthermore, these students are the future of our
scientific workforce--people that will be leading us toward
the innovation and problem-solving that is crucial for our
country's future.
This professor urged me and this Congress to do everything that we
can to roll back the sequester. That is one of the many reasons why I
supported the budget today.
Sequestration caused Federal workers to be furloughed or laid off
throughout Hawaii. Sequestration hurt our national defense, U.S.
competitiveness, and harmed education programs.
Head Start in Hawaii had to cut children from its programs this year.
This early education program is critical for
[[Page S8964]]
a young child's success later in life. Some of these kids and parents
don't have other options without Head Start.
Without this budget agreement, there would have been an additional
$20 billion cut to our defense programs hitting next month. Those
defense cuts are going to disproportionately hurt my home State of
Hawaii. Without this budget agreement, 25,000 Federal civilian workers
in Hawaii could be furloughed or laid off.
Hawaii can't afford that. I voted for this budget to prevent those
cuts.
The bipartisan budget agreement finally provides relief from the
sequester and a path forward to get our economy on the right track.
Most importantly, the budget protects Social Security and Medicare
benefits.
Although this budget is the right choice for many reasons, we know it
is not perfect. I do believe we need to work together to improve parts
of it.
I find it unacceptable and inexplicable that the House of
Representatives left town for the holidays without extending long-term
unemployment benefits, and I know we are working on making it a
priority as soon as we return in January.
In addition, Senator Shaheen has introduced legislation--which I am
proud to support and cosponsor--to protect military retirees from the
cost-of-living pay adjustment. The cost-of-living pay adjustment won't
take effect until January of 2015, which means that we have time to fix
this issue, but we must fix this issue.
This legislation that I am cosponsoring with Senator Shaheen will
fully pay for the change by closing a loophole that some companies are
using to avoid paying U.S. taxes with offshore tax havens. This is a
commonsense fix that I believe we can get bipartisan support for. We
need a long-term budget, but not at the expense of our military
retirees.
We can replace the money raised by closing this tax loophole that
some companies are abusing. We have time to fix this issue, and we have
to do so before 2015. But now is the time to move forward, to protect
jobs, and to give our country some economic certainty.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
____________________