[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.
____________________