[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 167 (Tuesday, November 10, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7875-S7878]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  RELATING TO PROVISIONS OF THE BORDER PATROL AGENT PAY REFORM ACT OF 
                                  2014

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Chair lays 
before the Senate the House message to accompany S. 1356, which the 
clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 1356) entitled 
     ``An Act to clarify that certain provisions of the Border 
     Patrol Agent Pay Reform Act of 2014 will not take effect 
     until after the Director of the Office of Personnel 
     Management promulgates and makes effective regulations 
     relating to such provisions,'' do pass with an amendment.


              Unanimous Consent Agreement--H. Con. Res. 90

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
Senate proceeds to the consideration of H.

[[Page S7876]]

Con. Res. 90, as under the previous order, it be in order for me to 
offer an amendment to the resolution; further, that the amendment be 
agreed to and all other provisions under the previous order remain in 
effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Motion to Concur

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I move to concur in the House amendment 
to S. 1356.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 20 
minutes equally divided prior to a vote on the motion to concur in the 
House amendment to S. 1356.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, today the Senate will once again 
consider the National Defense Authorization Act. This legislation 
passed the House last week in an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 370 
to 58. I hope we will have a similarly resounding vote here today.
  Today's vote would not be possible without the hard work of Chairman 
Mac Thornberry, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. It has 
been a privilege to work alongside him and the gentleman from 
Washington, Congressman Smith, to produce a defense authorization bill 
worthy of the troops it supports.
  I thank my friend and colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, for 
his dedicated work on this legislation and his many substantive 
contributions that made this a better bill.
  I thank the majority leader, Senator McConnell, for bringing this 
legislation to the floor today and for his commitment throughout this 
process to ensuring we give our military the certainty they need to 
plan and execute their missions.
  For 53 consecutive years, Congress has passed the National Defense 
Authorization Act. That is a testament to the vital importance of this 
legislation, which provides the authorities and support necessary for 
our military to defend the Nation. But perhaps at no time in the last 
half century has this legislation been so critical. Our Nation 
confronts the most diverse and complex array of crises since the end of 
World War II--the rampage of ISIL's terrorist army, Iran's malign 
activities across the Middle East, Russia's invasion of Ukraine and 
bloody intervention in Syria, China's continued pattern of assertive 
behavior toward its neighbors in the Asia-Pacific, and the list goes 
on, including what appears to be the recent bombing of an airliner over 
Egypt which apparently caused the loss of 244 lives, apparently an act 
of terror of monumental consequences.
  Rising to the challenges of an increasingly dangerous world requires 
bold reforms to national defense, and that is what this legislation 
delivers. The legislation is a reform bill. This legislation delivers 
the most sweeping reforms to our defense acquisition system in a 
generation. The NDAA modernizes a 70-year-old military retirement 
system and extends benefits to hundreds of thousands of servicemembers 
previously excluded under the old system. The legislation also makes 
significant reforms to Pentagon headquarters and management to ensure 
that precious defense resources are focused on our warfighters rather 
than bloated staffs. The bill identifies $11 billion in excessive and 
unnecessary spending from that request and reinvests those savings in 
critical national security priorities, including more fighter aircraft, 
accelerated shipbuilding, strengthening our cyber defenses, and $300 
million in vital assistance to Ukraine to resist Russian aggression.
  We did all of this while upholding our commitments to our 
servicemembers, retirees, and their families. The NDAA reauthorizes 
over 30 special pays and bonuses, makes military health care more 
portable, increases access to urgent care facilities, strengthens 
sexual assault prevention and response, and knocks down bureaucratic 
obstacles to ensure servicemembers maintain access to the medicines 
they need as they transition from Active Duty.
  Finally, the legislation before us recognizes that a strong national 
defense requires supporting our friends and allies and responding to 
common threats. With Vladimir Putin on the march, the NDAA includes 
$300 million to help Ukraine resist Russian aggression, including $50 
million for lethal assistance and counter-artillery radars. As China 
continues its aggressive behavior in the South China Sea, the NDAA will 
provide $50 million to assist and train our allies in the region to 
increase maritime security and the maritime domain awareness. As the 
Taliban mounts an offensive across Afghanistan, the NDAA authorizes 
$3.8 billion for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund to preserve the 
gains of the past decade and continue to degrade and defeat terrorists 
who want to attack the United States and our allies.
  This is an ambitious piece of legislation, but in the times we live, 
we cannot afford business as usual in the Department of Defense. To 
prepare our military to confront our present and future national 
security challenges, we must champion the cause of defense reform, 
rigorously root out Pentagon waste, and invest in modernization and 
next-generation technologies to maintain our military technological 
advantage. That is what this legislation is all about.
  Additionally, I would point out that as our citizenry and our voters 
are deeply frustrated and angry about our failure to get anything done 
here in the Congress of the United States, I would at least make the 
comment that our highest priority and responsibility is defending the 
Nation. I believe this legislation is an example of working not only on 
both sides of the aisle but on both sides of the Capitol. I would argue 
that this is the most significant reform legislation that has been 
passed in 30 years, but I would also tell my colleagues that this is 
just the beginning. This is the beginning of a bipartisan effort to 
reform the Pentagon, to reform the way we do business, to reform our 
priorities, and to reform the way the Pentagon was structured and our 
defense was structured. The last time it was reformed was 30 years ago 
under legislation called Goldwater-Nichols. Obviously, in the last 30 
years that world situation has changed dramatically--dramatically.
  On a bipartisan basis, working across the aisle and across the 
Capitol, I can assure my colleagues that next year at about this time, 
they will be seeing legislation that will try to address the challenges 
we are now facing in the world--in a more chaotic world than we have 
seen since the end of World War II. That is not just John McCain's 
opinion; that is the opinion of every knowledgeable, respected national 
security expert, ranging from Henry Kissinger, to Madeleine Albright, 
to Zbigniew Brzezinski, to Brent Scowcroft and others. We have to have 
a reformed Pentagon to meet the challenges. One great example of that 
is cyber security. Thirty years ago there were no cyber attacks on the 
United States of America. Today it is one of the looming challenges we 
face.
  I intend to carry on in the long tradition of this committee in which 
the Senator from Rhode Island and I have worked in partnership in 
addressing these new challenges and these grave challenges to America's 
security.
  I am proud of this legislation. Could we have done more? Yes. Were 
there different areas to which perhaps we should have paid more 
attention? Perhaps. But I would argue that this is the most significant 
reform legislation in the last 30 years.
  I thank my friend and colleague from Rhode Island.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the revised 
National Defense Authorization Act conference report we have before us 
today. It is the result of months of collaborative work by the Senate 
Armed Services Committee and a very thoughtful conference. I would like 
to join Chairman McCain and commend Chairman Mac Thornberry of Texas 
and Ranking Member Adam Smith of Washington. The collaboration, the 
thoughtfulness, and the consideration were extraordinary and 
outstanding throughout the conference process.
  I have to say that from my point of view, the reason we are here 
today most fundamentally is the leadership of Chairman McCain on the 
committee. It was thoughtful, it was bipartisan, and it encouraged 
participation by all the members of the committee. There was vigorous 
debate and then there were votes, and that is the way this

[[Page S7877]]

committee and this Congress should operate.
  Ultimately, too, I think it reflected what the Chairman has always 
brought to his duties as a Member of the U.S. Senate and before that 
the U.S. House of Representatives and before that the U.S. Navy--
understanding that what we do here ultimately reflects and influences 
and shapes the service and sacrifice of millions of young Americans in 
uniform. The Chairman never forgets that. He has laid out some of the 
extraordinary reforms that have been included in this legislation, and 
he has also indicated that we will continue to work next year under his 
leadership on additional reforms. These reforms in compensation, 
personnel policies, and a host of others, are going to set us and our 
Department of Defense on a better path forward. Again, much of it is 
because of his leadership and his direction.
  Previously, the National Defense Authorization bill came before the 
Senate and there was one area of major disagreement; that was the use 
of the overseas contingency operations fund. I must again thank the 
Chairman because he allowed a vigorous debate, a vote on the floor, and 
ultimately and very satisfactorily this has been resolved in the recent 
budget agreement. So now we have legislation before us that raises the 
annual budget cap of the Department of Defense and other agencies, and 
it allows our defense to be more forward-looking and more able to 
rationally budget going forward. I think this has given us both the 
budget authority and the proper direction so that we can have a much 
more stable and much more predictable future. Again, I think it will be 
a wonderful facilitator as we consider additional reforms next year in 
the Defense Authorization bill.
  The budget agreement also recognizes the fact that one of the 
challenges is not only those programs that are controlled by the 
Department of Defense but also other agencies that are involved in 
national security. Relief for those agencies is also important in 
carrying out the mission of the Department of Defense and protecting 
the American people.
  With this new NDAA, I think we have been able to keep our pledge to 
the men and women in uniform of the United States.
  Let me finally conclude where I began. I thank Chairman McCain, 
Chairman Thornberry, and Ranking Member Smith, but more particularly 
the staff. We who have the privilege of serving on the Armed Services 
Committee understand the extraordinary hours, the effort, the insight, 
and the total commitment of not only the committee staff members but 
the staffs of the individual members. Their efforts are reflected in 
this bill. It will not bear their names but, more importantly, it will 
bear their work. For that I thank them very, very much.

  Let me urge all of my colleagues to support this bill, to join 
Senator McCain and others so that for the 54th straight year we will 
have a National Defense Authorization Act that will become the law of 
the United States.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, earlier this year, I voted in opposition to 
the fiscal year 2016 National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA. Since 
the Senate last voted on the fiscal year 2016 NDAA, Congress has passed 
and the President has signed the new Bipartisan Budget Act, which 
raised the discretionary caps on spending across the government, 
averted a default, and provided a path forward on appropriations.
  The Bipartisan Budget Act also enabled authors of the NDAA to fix a 
gimmick that called for spending from overseas contingency operations, 
OCO, funding to meet requirements that should have been supported by 
the Department's base budget. I remain concerned, however, that, in 
order to meet the new caps, budgetary authority had to be cut from this 
bill. Specifically, I do not believe that readiness funds for the Army, 
the Army National Guard, and the Army Reserves should be slashed at the 
same time that many in this body are demanding more soldiers be sent to 
places like Eastern Europe. This authorization bill will spend hundreds 
of millions of dollars on unneeded and ineffective missile defense 
programs, for example, while cutting the training and preparation funds 
for the men and women we send overseas. The bill also makes significant 
changes to the defense acquisition system and, inexplicably, cuts key 
provisions to support the National Guard that enjoyed support in both 
the Senate and the House.
  But perhaps most importantly, I am concerned that, in this new 
version of the bill, Congress failed to reconsider the ill-advised 
restrictions on detainee transfers from Guantanamo Bay that are 
contained in this NDAA--restrictions that President Obama cited as one 
reason for his veto of the original version of the bill last month. I 
opposed passage of that conference report in part because it contained 
a needless prohibition on transferring detainees to the United States 
for detention or trial, and it imposed unnecessary restrictions on 
transferring detainees to foreign countries.
  Rather than working to address these misguided provisions, 
Republicans in Congress have evidently decided to stand in the way of 
finally bringing this terrible chapter to a close. They are making a 
grave mistake. For over a decade, the detention facility at Guantanamo 
has been a stain on our national reputation and served as a recruitment 
tool for terrorists. Guantanamo is also a tremendous waste of taxpayer 
dollars, costing approximately $3.4 million per year to maintain a 
single detainee--an astonishing amount of money that could be 
repurposed to keep our men and women in uniform safe. Closing 
Guantanamo is the morally and fiscally responsible thing to do, and I 
am deeply disappointed that these restrictions have been included. That 
is why I was proud to cosponsor an amendment filed by Senator Feinstein 
to strip these troubling provisions from the bill.
  The bill does include an extremely significant provision: the McCain-
Feinstein antitorture amendment. Last year, Senator Feinstein and the 
Senate Intelligence Committee did this country a great service in 
exposing the CIA's horrific practices under the Bush administration. 
The McCain-Feinstein amendment is a major step toward finally bringing 
to a close that dark, shameful chapter in our Nation's history. This 
provision finally codifies in statute the interrogation standards in 
the Army Field Manual--not just for military personnel, but for 
intelligence agents as well. It will clearly define acceptable 
interrogation practices and will hopefully ensure that America never 
engages in torture again.
  Providing certainty for the Department's men and women and their 
families, as well as for military planners, is very important, and in 
significant ways, this bill accomplishes that. While this bill has 
shortcomings I hope we can address in the near future, I have given my 
support to its adoption and will only add that, in advance of Veterans 
Day and every day the men and women who serve and protect us deserve 
nothing less than the thanks of a grateful nation.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I wish to express reluctant support for 
the fiscal year 2016 National Defense Authorization Act.
  Many parts of the agreement represent bipartisan consensus between 
Chairman McCain, Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member Reed, and Ranking 
Member Adam Smith. We all appreciate their hard work on those matters 
for our troops and their families.
  It provides well-deserved pay increases to our uniformed and defense 
civilian workforce. It modernizes the personnel benefit system to 
include a government matched savings plan. It authorizes $300 million 
in assistance to Ukraine, of which $50 million may be lethal 
assistance. It codifies the President's Executive order against torture 
and ensures that interrogations follow the Army Field Manual. I wish to 
thank Senator McCain and Senator Feinstein in particular for their 
leadership on this issue.
  In addition, it extends the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa program so 
that we may continue to keep faith with foreign translators who risked 
their lives working with our troops. It authorizes a number of military 
construction projects around the world, including $29 million in family 
housing units at Rock Island Arsenal, IL. It reauthorizes the DOD-VA 
pilot program at North Chicago, the Lovell Federal Health Care Center.
  For these and many other reasons, I voted for the agreement, but it 
is a

[[Page S7878]]

compromise, and I must express my opposition to a few of its 
provisions.
  One of those points of disagreement is that the bill prevents the 
closure of the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The reality 
is that, every day that it remains open, Guantanamo prison weakens our 
alliances, inspires our enemies, and calls into question our commitment 
to human rights.
  Time and again, our most senior national security and military 
leaders have called for the closure of Guantanamo. In addition to the 
national security cost, every day that Guantanamo remains open, we are 
wasting taxpayer dollars. We are spending $3.3 million per year for 
each detainee held at Guantanamo Bay--compare that with the estimated 
$78,000 that it costs to hold a detainee in a Federal super maximum 
security prison.
  Yet the conference agreement makes it even harder to transfer 
detainees to foreign countries, prohibits transfers to the U.S., and 
prohibits construction or modification of facilities in the U.S.
  All of us are committed to preventing terrorist attacks. Terrorists 
deserve swift and sure justice and severe prison sentences.
  But holding detainees at Guantanamo does not administer justice 
effectively. It does not serve our national security interests, and it 
is inconsistent with the country's history as a champion of human 
rights.
  In order to conform to the budget agreement, the bill also includes 
$1.7 billion in reductions to headquarters management personnel. 
Everyone in the Senate wants to cut the fat from the Pentagon, but we 
must make sure that these cuts are targeted toward inefficiency and 
waste, as opposed to recklessly eliminating our valued DOD civilian 
workforce.
  The women and men who serve our Nation's defense outside of a uniform 
are our teammates in making our country secure. They process military 
pay; investigate fraud, waste, and abuse; oversee expensive weapons 
programs; and many more important functions. I am proud of each DOD 
civilian, especially those who work in Illinois, and I will work to 
make sure that the Congress supports their contributions to our 
country.
  This is a very good agreement, these reservations notwithstanding. It 
is full of provisions which help our troops, reforms the way the 
Pentagon does business, and provides for our military families. I thank 
Senator McCain and Senator Reed for their hard work and commend the 
bill's passage for the 54th year in a row.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KIRK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Unanimous Consent Agreement--H.R. 2029

  Mr. KIRK. Madam President, the ranking member and I have a package of 
amendments that have been cleared by both sides. I ask unanimous 
consent that when the Senate resumes consideration of H.R. 2029, the 
following amendments be called up, reported by number, and the Senate 
vote on the amendments en bloc: Moran, No. 2774; Murkowski, No. 2775; 
Murkowski, No. 2776; Blumenthal, No. 2779; Blumenthal, No. 2781, 
Toomey, No. 2785; Sullivan, No. 2786; Sullivan, No. 2787; Collins, No. 
2788; Cornyn, No. 2789; Bennet, No. 2795; Durbin, No. 2794; and Boxer, 
No. 2798.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs 
on agreeing to the motion to concur in the House amendment to S. 1356.
  Mr. DAINES. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
Graham), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from 
Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the 
Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller) 
would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) 
would have voted ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 3, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 301 Leg.]

                                YEAS--91

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker

                                NAYS--3

     Merkley
     Sanders
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Cruz
     Graham
     Heller
     Paul
     Rubio
     Vitter
  The motion was agreed to.

                          ____________________