[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 19329-19330]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           NATIONAL SECURITY

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to address the dire 
national security situation and the responsibility of this body to pass 
a national defense authorization bill this year.
  Congress has passed this legislation for each of the last 51 years, 
always with broad bipartisan support. This year should be no different. 
Our service men and women are deployed around the globe in defense of 
our Nation. They put themselves in harm's way to further the American 
principles of freedom and democracy, yet we have failed to provide 
these men and women and our senior military leaders the fiscal 
certainty and legal authorities they need to complete their vital 
missions.
  Instead, we have a Senate majority intent on fundamentally altering 
the way the Senate conducts business by pushing through bills without a 
full and open process. This is not the way the Senate was designed to 
function.
  This year's National Defense Authorization Act was reported out of 
the Senate Armed Services Committee on June 20 of this year. Since that 
time it has been delayed time and again by the Senate majority leader 
as our Defense leaders struggle to implement our national security 
strategy. General Dempsey recently transmitted to congressional 
leadership an itemized list of 26 authorities that will expire at the 
end of this year or shortly thereafter. We are not talking about 
legislating ancillary programs or nonessential functions, we are 
talking about military special pay and bonuses for deployed 
servicemembers, funds to transition security responsibilities to our 
Afghan partners, and critical counterinsurgency programs in the Middle 
East, as well as funding for our intelligence community.
  While I support the underlying bill, I am deeply disappointed with 
the process that got us to this point and thus why I did not vote to 
invoke cloture. Frankly, I had several amendments I would like to have 
added to this bill addressing such issues as a technical correction 
giving Reservists and National Guardsmen proper credit toward 
retirement for time spent deployed, and an important land transfer of 
Camp Merrill in Georgia between the Army and the U.S. Forest Service.
  I have seen many changes during my years in the Senate, but among 
those is a disturbing trend regarding the NDAA. We seem to be operating 
on the premise of fewer, faster, and later. By fewer, I mean fewer 
amendments. All Senators deserve the opportunity to amend this 
important piece of legislation. The 20-year average is 140 amendments 
per year. Last year we were only able to pass 106 amendments. This year 
we debated one.
  As we have seen time and time again, the majority uses the amendment 
tree to shut down debate and move the bill quicker through the Senate. 
My colleagues and I have filed over 500 amendments to this year's NDAA. 
Through hard work and bipartisan support, the two Armed Services 
Committee staffs have striven to accommodate the concerns of the 
Senate. But even so, there are pressing issues that require full and 
deliberative debate in the Senate. These include military sexual 
assault, counterterrorism and detention policy, and sanctions against 
those regimes that would do America harm, including Iran.
  By faster, I mean the bill spends less time on the Senate floor. The 
20-year average is over 9 days, with a maximum of 19 days for the 
fiscal year 2008 bill. The 1 day we spent on this bill in November is 
insufficient time to debate the critical security issues confronting 
our Nation.
  The Senate majority has gone to great lengths to keep the bill off 
the floor. When they could no longer avoid it, they have compressed the 
timeline for consideration or recommitted it to the Armed Services 
Committee. This is unprecedented and it is totally unacceptable.
  By later, I mean a lack of urgency to take up the bill after 
committee action. Looking back over the last 40

[[Page 19330]]

years, the Senate has gone from passing the NDAA consistently before 
August to later and later in the year. Last year, it was December. This 
year we are running up against the end of the year.
  I am deeply disappointed at the recent turn of events in the Senate. 
Under the guise of streamlining the legislative process, the Senate 
majority has effectively blocked critical legislative priorities such 
as the National Defense Authorization Act. I urge my Senate colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle to work together to discharge the 
fundamental duties our constituents, servicemembers, and veterans 
demand of us. We should dispose of the fewer, faster, and later 
mentality and return Congress to regular order.
  Leadership matters. No one knows this better than our men and women 
in uniform. The Constitution of the United States tasks us with 
providing for the common defense. I fear we have failed in our 
constitutional obligation, and this failure is a failure of leadership, 
plain and simple.
  With that being said, I want to pay a particular compliment to 
Chairman Levin as well as to Ranking Member Inhofe for their 
leadership, which has not failed the country nor has it failed this 
body. They got together and produced a bill that came out of our 
committee in due course after a full and open debate on many critical 
issues, with the understanding we would have the opportunity on the 
floor of the Senate to file amendments, debate those amendments, and 
have up-or-down votes.
  Chairman Levin has been more than accommodating throughout the 
process, before and after the time the bill came out of the Armed 
Services Committee. Likewise, Senator Inhofe has been more than 
accommodating in making sure Members on this side of the aisle had free 
and open access to the debate process. They have provided the kind of 
leadership we expect.
  Unfortunately, the majority leader has made a decision to cram this 
down the throats of the Senate, and from a national security standpoint 
that is simply not the way this body is designed to work or should 
work.
  I will support the passage of this bill, because I think the end 
product, amazingly enough, has turned out to be a pretty good product. 
Could it have been better? You bet. Could the process have been better? 
Without question. I just wish we had had the opportunity to debate the 
serious issues that are on the minds of a number of Members of the 
Senate when it comes to national security, and that we had had the 
opportunity to present amendments that would have made this strong bill 
even stronger and to provide our men and women in uniform and the 
leadership at the Pentagon with the tools they need to be sure we 
remain the world's strongest military power and that we are able to not 
only defend America and Americans but to provide for freedom and 
democracy around the world.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________