[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 19322-19329]
[From the U.S. 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 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

[[Page 19323]]

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. 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.

[[Page 19324]]



                      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 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.

[[Page 19325]]

       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.
  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

[[Page 19326]]

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.
  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

[[Page 19327]]

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 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

[[Page 19328]]

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 a young child's success 
later in life. Some of these kids and parents don't have other options 
without Head Start.

[[Page 19329]]

  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.

                          ____________________