[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5969-5974]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          PAYCHECK FAIRNESS ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Rhode Island.
  The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Minimum Wage Fairness Act

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Minimum Wage 
Fairness Act, which I strongly support. The minimum wage, first 
instituted in 1938, has served as a key way to protect workers in our 
economy, ensuring they are able to earn enough money to provide basic 
living necessities. However,

[[Page 5970]]

the current minimum wage set at $7.25 fails to do that.
  The Federal minimum wage has not been increased since 2009. Today an 
individual who works 40 hours per week, 52 weeks a year at the Federal 
minimum wage earns $15,080 per year. This is nearly $5,000 below the 
Federal poverty level for a family of three and almost $9,000 below the 
poverty level for a family of four. This means we have hard-working 
Americans who put in full-time work every week for the entire year yet 
still live in poverty. This is unacceptable.
  If we fail to act, the Federal poverty level will rise with inflation 
while the minimum wage will not. As a result, families earning $7.25 
per hour will continue to fall further and further below the poverty 
line.
  The value of the minimum wage peaked in 1968, and it is now much 
lower due to inflation. If the minimum wage had kept pace with 
inflation, it would currently pay $10.74 per hour. While the value of 
the minimum wage has been on the decline, worker productivity has been 
on the rise, and that is a disconnect. Increased productivity usually 
means there are increased wages that reflect that productivity, but 
that is not the case with the minimum wage. If the minimum wage had 
increased with rising productivity, it would be worth over $21 per hour 
today. Yet the minimum wage still stays stuck at $7.25.
  If we were paying workers based on the 1968 level, it would be much 
higher. If we were paying workers based on their productivity and their 
ability to do the job, it would be exceptionally high.
  The bill that will come before us shortly will increase the minimum 
wage in three installments until it reaches $10.10 per hour and then 
tie the Federal minimum wage to inflation. This would ensure that the 
value of the minimum wage will not be eroded over time as it has been. 
The bill will also increase the minimum wage for tipped workers, whose 
minimum wage has been fixed at $2.13 for over two decades. I must 
salute the Presiding Officer for his insistence that this provision be 
included in the minimum wage bill.
  Over 3.5 million Americans currently work at or below the current 
minimum wage, and there are millions more who work just above it. 
Raising the minimum wage would therefore increase the wages of everyone 
making between the current minimum wage and the $10.10 mark.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 16.5 million Americans 
would see their wages increased by this legislation. The Council of 
Economic Advisers estimates that 28 million people would benefit from 
the wage increase.
  According to researchers at MIT, a Rhode Island worker supporting a 
family of four would need to earn $19.17 per hour to have a living 
wage, a wage in which he or she could adequately support their family. 
Yet the current minimum wage lags woefully behind, thereby putting many 
working families in dire financial situations.
  The Economic Policy Institute estimates that raising the Federal 
minimum wage to $10.10 per hour--I would point out that our minimum 
wage in Rhode Island is $8 and that is higher than the Federal minimum 
wage--would give over 90,000 Rhode Islanders a raise. That would 
immediately translate to economic activity in Rhode Island, and it 
would immediately translate into growth in Rhode Island. That raise 
would affect almost 20 percent of our workforce. This is a critical 
way--in order to give families the ability to support themselves--to 
increase economic growth and also significantly begin to bring together 
workers at every level. We have seen extraordinary gains at the top 
level. We have extraordinary stagnation at the mid-level and the low 
level. We have to start bringing ourselves together rather than pulling 
ourselves apart.
  Providing a raise to these Rhode Island workers would also impact an 
estimated 40,000 children in those families. Over 3 years, the Economic 
Policy Institute estimates this will cause the Rhode Island economy to 
grow by $77 million and support 300 additional jobs. We are talking 
about economic growth as well as fairness to working Americans.
  The benefits of raising the minimum wage are vast both in my State 
and across this country. According to the CBO, this legislation would 
lift an estimated 900,000 people out of poverty. It would also help low 
and middle-income families who have been struggling in this economy. 
This would have a huge impact--and a positive impact--across the 
country.
  Increasing the minimum wage is especially important to women who 
disproportionately work minimum wage jobs. Fifty-five percent of all 
minimum wage workers are women, including over 70 percent of the tipped 
workers.
  Again, thanks to the efforts of the Presiding Officer, we are 
focusing on this issue of the tipped worker and their minimum wage.
  While some have suggested otherwise, this legislation is also good 
for business. Studies show that higher wages allow businesses to save 
money because they have less turnover and lower training costs, which 
leads to increases in worker productivity that helps businesses 
succeed. An increased minimum wage can also help our Nation's small 
businesses to compete. It forces the big-box stores to pay wages that 
are comparable to those that are paid by many small businesses, which 
levels the playing field in the marketplace.
  Finally, this bill will save billions of dollars on the Federal 
budget. By raising the minimum wage to $10.10, Federal need-based 
programs would have fewer enrollees and the costs of these programs 
would drop significantly. Researchers at the Brookings Institution 
estimate that increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 will save at least 
$11 billion annually in the Federal budget, and these savings come both 
from the lower costs of Federal programs and increased revenues from 
taxing a higher base salary.
  Some critics have suggested that increasing the minimum wage only 
helps teenagers, but in fact the average age of individuals who will 
benefit from this legislation is 35 years old. Nationally, over 84 
percent of those directly affected by this legislation are at least 20 
years old and nearly half are at least 30.
  In my State, according to the estimates by the Economic Policy 
Institute, 77 percent of workers who would see a raise under this bill 
are at least 20 years old. This is not just the part-time high school 
student who works a few hours a week making the minimum wage; these are 
people who are, on average, 30 years or older who are working and 
struggling not only for themselves but, in many cases, for their 
families. This bill is something that is beneficial to workers 
throughout this country.
  Opponents of the minimum wage have also argued that increasing the 
minimum wage will decrease jobs, citing a recent CBO report. However, 
the CBO report was generated without any new analyses on the part of 
the CBO, and their estimates are stated with a great deal of 
uncertainty.
  In fact, the CBO's own numbers suggest there is a 16-percent chance 
that increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 would actually increase 
employment. Economists at Goldman Sachs and at the Brookings 
Institution say that the CBO report overstates the likely negative 
impact on jobs.
  Further, over 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners, sent a 
letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging them to 
support this bill, saying that ``the weight of evidence now [shows] 
that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative 
effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of 
weakness in the labor market.'' They go on to add that it could help 
stimulate the economy as higher wages will lead to increased consumer 
demand and spending.
  The most recent research suggests that rather than having job losses, 
this will contribute to a growing economy. The benefits of raising the 
minimum wage are immense for families, workers, and the economy as a 
whole.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation to help 
restore

[[Page 5971]]

the minimum wage as a safeguard for workers and their families in this 
country.


           Recognizing 99th Anniversary of Armenian Genocide

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, this month we solemnly recognize the 99th 
anniversary of the Armenian genocide. Ninety-nine years ago the Young 
Turk leaders of the Ottoman Empire summoned and executed over 200 
Armenian leaders and intellectuals, beginning an 8-year campaign of 
oppression and massacre. By 1923, nearly 1.5 million Armenians were 
killed and over a half a million survivors were exiled. These 
atrocities affected the lives of every Armenian living in Asia Minor 
and, indeed, throughout the world.
  Henry Morgenthau, Sr., who was the U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman 
Empire during President Wilson's administration and who had urged 
intervention, later remembered the events of the genocide, saying:

       I am confident that the whole history of the human race 
     contains no such horrible episode as this. The great 
     massacres and persecutions of the past seem almost 
     insignificant when compared to the sufferings of the Armenian 
     race in 1915.

  The survivors of the Armenian genocide, however, persevered due to 
their unbreakable spirit and steadfast resolve. They went on to enrich 
their countries of emigration, including the United States, with their 
centuries-old customs and culture. That is why today we not only 
commemorate this grave tragedy, but we celebrate the traditions, the 
contributions, and the bright future of Armenia.
  In particular, I wish to note the incredibly strong Armenian-American 
community in my home State of Rhode Island. The Rhode Island Armenian-
American community, as it does each year, holds events in commemoration 
of this grave tragedy. One will take place this year at the Martyrs' 
Monument at the North Burial Ground in Providence. This monument was 
built 38 years ago in memory of those who were lost in the genocide.
  This year I once again join with my Senate colleagues on a resolution 
that encourages the United States to officially recognize the Armenian 
genocide. Denial of this history is not consistent with our country's 
sensitivity to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. We must 
continue to educate our young people against this type of hatred and 
oppression so that we can seek to prevent such crimes against humanity 
in the future.
  I also remain committed to supporting efforts as a member of the 
Senate Appropriations Committee to provide foreign assistance to 
Armenia to promote economic growth and business competitiveness, 
strengthen military and security assistance, and support democratic 
reforms and sustainable development.
  I also wish to express my concern regarding the recent fighting and 
violence that is endangering the Armenian community in Kessab, Syria, 
and has forced many to flee. This community and so many others continue 
to struggle in the midst of this conflict.
  We must find a way to recognize what happened 99 years ago and show 
our steadfast support to those who are currently being impacted by 
persecution. I hope we can come together and do that.
  With that, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise today on three matters. First and 
most importantly is the issue of pay equity. Frankly, we should not be 
talking about this in 2014--the fact that women still too often do not 
get equal pay for equal work. Senate Republicans showed this morning--
it is disappointing--that too many in this Chamber simply do not think 
closing the wage gap between men and women--closing the wage gap by 
which working women are victimized--is that important.
  Think back to 1963, the beginning, not of the civil rights movement, 
of course, but of Congressional action in 1963, 1964, and 1965 on 
voting rights and civil rights. In 1963, the Equal Pay Act came up 
first. President Kennedy signed it. Women were earning 60 cents for 
every dollar men earned. Now, 50 years later, that figure has increased 
only 17 cents.
  How many more years should people in this country wait? In 2012, 
median earnings for men working full time in Ohio were $46,700; for 
women $35,900, an earnings ratio of about 77 percent. The Paycheck 
Fairness Act would shore up the Equal Pay Act and create stronger 
incentives for employers to follow the law while helping women fight 
pay discrimination.
  The pay gap persists across all occupations and educational levels. 
From the outset women are paid less than men just 1 year after college 
in nearly every occupation. The gap grows from there. As the gap grows 
in pay, the gap grows in pensions. Lilly Ledbetter taught us that. The 
decidedly lower pay that she received working at Goodyear showed up in 
a significantly lower pension when she retired. Over the course of a 
35-year career, a woman with a college degree will make about $1.2 
million less than a man with the same level of education.
  As I said, women make less, their families have less, and the 
retirement income and savings are smaller. For Women 65 and older, 
their annual median income from all retirement sources--Social 
Security, pensions, and private savings--is about $11,000 less than men 
in the same age group. It is even more discouraging for African-
American women, who make 64 percent less, and Hispanic women, who earn 
53 percent less. That is so, so unacceptable.
  As a father of daughters, as a husband, as a grandfather of 2-week-
old Jacqueline Sally, I know--and so does America--this pay gap 
devalues women's work and discourages economic growth because women 
make up nearly half of today's workforce. At a time when families are 
struggling to make ends meet, equal pay for equal work is not just a 
gender issue; it is a family issue.
  In more than one-third of families, women are the primary wage 
earner. As the main breadwinner, women are asked to carry a greater 
economic load while making less than they deserve and, frankly, less 
than they have actually earned.
  Many of these woman get up early, they take the bus to work, they 
stand on their feet all day, they come home, they take care of their 
children, and they do not ask for a handout. But they are asking for 
equal pay. If the wage gap were eliminated, an Ohio woman working full 
time would have enough money for 88 more weeks of food for her family, 
9 more months of mortgage and utility payments, 15 months of rent, and 
3,000 additional gallons of gas. Our economy would grow, boosting GDP 
by 2.9 percent, or $450 billion.


                            The Minimum Wage

  Senator Jack Reed was in the Chamber 45 minutes or so ago when I was 
the Presiding Officer. Senator Reed talked about Rhode Island and the 
minimum wage and the impact of a lower minimum wage than it should be. 
They have a bit higher one in Rhode Island than in some States, and we 
have a bit higher one in Ohio than in some States. But raising the 
minimum wage to 10.10 an hour nationally would mean--he said 90,000 
people in Rhode Island. It would be way more, hundreds of thousands in 
Ohio who would get an increase in the minimum wage and would get a pay 
raise if this body did what it should, which we are going to try to do 
in the next 3 or 4 weeks; that is, to raise the minimum wage.
  The impact of the minimum wage is especially important for women. 
What is especially important for women is the so called ``tipped 
wage.'' This is the tipped wage for people who work in jobs where there 
are tips. It could be a valet, it could be a waitress or a server or it 
could be somebody pushing a wheelchair at an airport. Their minimum 
wage is only $2.13 an hour, plus tips, if people know to tip the man or

[[Page 5972]]

woman who is pushing the wheelchair in the airport.
  I watch pretty closely. I spend a lot of time flying between 
Cleveland and Washington or Columbus and Washington. I notice that more 
often than not, people who ride in the carts or are sitting in a 
wheelchair do not tip the worker whose minimum wage is $2.13 an hour. 
They do not tip the worker because I think they do not know to tip the 
worker. I do not think they are cheap. They do not know that worker may 
be only making $2, $3, $4 or $5 an hour.
  But the minimum wage for that tipped worker is only $2.13 an hour. 
Whether they work in a diner in Gallipolis, or Chillicothe, whether 
they are working at the Toledo or Cleveland airport driving a cart or 
pushing a wheelchair, whether they are working as a valet in Cincinnati 
or Dayton, their tipped wage has been stuck at $2.13 since 1991.
  The State of Maryland recently raised their minimum wage. They did 
not raise the tipped wage which is stuck where it has been for a number 
of years. Americans do not know this--that typically there is a 
subminimum wage that is a lot less. Most of the workers--the 
overwhelming majority of workers that get that tipped wage--are women.
  We know that in restaurants the sexual harassment rate of workers is 
one of the highest in the country because they depend on customers for 
their tips and they depend on their boss for the distribution of the 
tips to get their minimum wage--$2.13 an hour. Some restaurants pay $3, 
$4 or $5--I am not saying none of them do, but to get their minimum 
wage--their tipped wage--simply up to the minimum wage.
  Surely, as some will say, in some restaurants the workers make way, 
way, way more than the minimum wage. They are more likely than not male 
workers who work in the highest end restaurants. You are more likely 
going to see women in the diners and the lower-paid service jobs in 
restaurants.


                        Doolittle Tokyo Raiders

  April 18 will mark the 72nd anniversary of the 1942 Doolittle Raid, 
the first offensive action by the U.S. military following Pearl Harbor. 
Eighty men, known today as the Doolittle Tokyo Raiders, volunteered for 
an ``extremely hazardous mission'' without knowing the target, location 
or assignment. The Raiders, led by LTC James Doolittle, launched their 
B-25 Mitchell Bombers 650 miles from their target. After hitting their 
military and industrial targets in Tokyo and five other cities, they 
were low on fuel, the weather was deteriorating. All 16 planes were 
forced to crash-land in China or Russia.
  Of the 80 men on the mission, eight Raiders were captured. Of these 
eight, three were executed; one died of disease; and four returned 
home. Their mission traveled an average distance of 2,200 miles over 13 
hours, making it the longest combat mission ever flown in a B-25 
Mitchell Bomber.
  I would add that another aviation hero in Vietnam just walked into 
the Chamber--Senator McCain--right at the time I was talking about the 
Doolittle Raiders. The Senator has signed our resolution and 
commendation for a Medal of Honor for them. I thank Senator McCain both 
for his heroism, especially, and for joining us in this effort.
  In 2002, I led a resolution to recognize the 70th anniversary. It 
passed the Senate unanimously. Early last year, I renewed my efforts to 
award the Congressional Gold Medal to the Doolittle Tokyo Raiders. We 
have got 78 cosponsors, nine more than the 67 necessary. This bill 
passed in the Senate in November by unanimous consent.
  On November 9, 2013, the Raiders celebrated their final reunion. They 
have met every year since the end of--I believe since the end of World 
War II. They met at the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force in 
Dayton. The meeting marked the last planned gathering of the living 
Raiders, which was celebrated by the opening of an 1896 bottle of 
Hennessy cognac, originally given by their commander, Jimmy Doolittle, 
on his 60th birthday.
  Of the 80 men on the raid, only four remain alive today; only 3 were 
able to get to the reunion. Time is running out. I appreciate the 
efforts of Congressman Pete Olson from Texas who is leading the effort 
in the House.
  I hope the Speaker, the leadership, and both parties will take the 
final action needed to pass the legislation to honor these heroes.


               150th Anniversary of Gallaudet University

  It is appropriate Senator McCain is in the Chamber too. In 2008, 
Senator McCain, who had served as the Senate designee on the Gallaudet 
University board of trustees, left during his Presidential run. Senator 
Harkin and Senator McCain apparently had recommended that I be the 
Senate designee on the board at Gallaudet University.
  This week Gallaudet celebrated its 150th anniversary. It is an 
incredible place, as Senator McCain knows. It is the only one of its 
kind in the world, a school for the deaf, created during the 
administration of President Lincoln 150 years ago in 1864.
  Senator McCain certainly will have reminiscences and stories about 
serving on this board, but my first dinner my first night at the 
Gallaudet University board meeting, the students, all deaf, came out 
and performed a dance for the board. A number of the board hear--as I 
do, obviously--but a number don't and they signed everything.
  The students who were dancing to the music were able to dance because 
of the vibrations they felt on the floor. You could see this dance 
troupe, but if you hadn't known better, you wouldn't have known they 
were deaf because they were dancing an exact rhythm with the 
percussion, the beat, and the vibrations on the floor in the ballroom 
where the dinner was for the Gallaudet board.
  I wish Gallaudet another 150 years. It is an incredible institution. 
It has served this country so well. It is partially congressionally 
funded.
  Senator McCain, Senator Harkin, and now Senator Moran of Kansas are 
all particularly interested in it. It is an honor to be part of it. I 
wish Gallaudet a happy 150th birthday.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Ohio for his service on one of 
the very remarkable experiences that one could have at Gallaudet 
University--the wonderful, loving, caring people who make us all proud 
of their success. I thank him for his involvement.
  I also thank him for honoring our heroes today of long ago and far 
away when the United States was in great jeopardy.


                      Littoral Combat Ship Program

  I rise to bring attention to the Navy's littoral combat ship--with 
not a great deal of pleasure in doing so. It is a troubled major 
defense acquisition program that, if not properly addressed, will join 
a list of failed procurements at the Department of Defense.
  From the 13 arduous years LCS has been in development, we have 
learned yet again an important costly basic lesson: If we don't know 
what we really want when we procure a weapons system, we are likely not 
to like what we get, if we get anything. In this case, the Navy's poor 
planning continues to frustrate its ability to state a clear role for 
LCS, the littoral combat ship, has led to dramatic cost increases, 
years of wasted effort, and a ship that the U.S. Pacific Command 
Commander Admiral Locklear recently conceded only ``partially'' 
satisfies his operational requirements.
  The list of how the Littoral Combat Ship Program has failed is ironic 
and--given the amount of taxpayers' investment to date--shameful. In 
LCS we have, No. 1, a supposed warship that apparently can't survive a 
hostile combat environment; No. 2, a program chosen for affordability 
that doubled in cost since inception and is subject to the risk of 
further cost growth as testing continues; No. 3, a ``revolutionary'' 
design that somehow has managed to be inferior to what came before it 
on important performance measures; and, No. 4, a system designed for 
flexibility that cannot successfully demonstrate its most important 
warfighting functions.

[[Page 5973]]

  Like so many major programs that preceded it, LCS's failure followed 
predictably from a chronic lack of careful planning from its very 
outset in three areas: undefined requirements, unrealistic initial cost 
estimates, and unreliable assessments of technological and integration 
risk.
  In 2002, the Navy submitted its first request to Congress to 
authorize funding for the LCS Program. Yet even then the program's lack 
of defined requirements drew criticism from the Armed Services 
Committee conferees. The conferees noted that:

       LCS has not been vetted through the [Pentagon's top 
     requirements-setting body, called the] Joint Requirements 
     Oversight Council [and that] the Navy's strategy for the LCS 
     does not clearly identify the plan and funding for 
     development and evaluation of the mission packages upon which 
     the operational capabilities of LCS will depend.

  Despite the conferees' concerns, Congress approved funding for the 
LCS Program and authorized hundreds of millions of dollars for a 
program without well-defined frozen requirements. The Navy, therefore, 
charged ahead with production without a stable design or realistic cost 
estimates. That resulted in frequent costly changes to the ships, even 
as they were being built.
  Originally, the Navy wanted a small, fast, affordable ship to augment 
larger ships in the fleet, with several interchangeable plug-and-play 
mission modules that would be used with aluminum and, separately, 
steel-hull seaframes. LCS was to serve multiple roles operating in 
coastal or open waters as part of a larger battle force.
  The Navy could have easily procured a small warship similar to those 
already serving in naval fleets around the world. The capabilities of 
such ships were well-known at the time and would have required much 
less development.
  The Navy could also have upgraded older ships with a proven track 
record. Without any formal analysis of those reasonable alternatives, 
the Navy opted instead to develop a high-risk ``revolutionary'' ship 
that bore little resemblance to anything else in the fleet.
  Despite the foreseeable costs of building LCS seaframes while 
development was still ongoing, LCS's original cost estimates were 
overly optimistic. Navy officials have since characterized those 
estimates as ``more of a hopeful forcing function than a realistic 
appraisal of likely costs.'' I can assure my colleagues that if we had 
known that was the Navy's cost estimates at the time--hopeful forcing 
function, more than a realistic appraisal of likely costs--I can assure 
my colleagues we would never have approved it.
  While hope for low costs may spring eternal, reality is a far more 
helpful basis in generating cost estimates. In this case, a realistic 
estimate would have allowed legislators and top defense acquisition 
managers alike to make much more informed decisions on procuring the 
LCS.
  But because of poor planning early in the program, LCS suffered 
through years of waste while demonstrating little in the way of desired 
combat capability. Hundreds of millions of dollars continued to pour 
into LCS each year, even though the program continually failed to 
deliver useful capability or conclusively flesh out the ship's unstable 
design.
  Finally, in 2007--remember, 5 years later--Secretary of the Navy 
Donald Winter identified a need to slow down production so that a clear 
LCS design could be established and fixed-price agreements could be 
pursued before more taxpayer dollars were wasted. I strongly supported 
Secretary Winter's actions, and I still believe that he effectively 
highlighted the extent to which LCS was slipping out of control.
  It was not until 2010, however, that the Navy ultimately began to 
implement guidelines to bring skyrocketing LCS costs under control. 
With congressional approval, the Navy overhauled and restructured the 
LCS Program and, since then, the cost of building LCS's seaframes has 
finally stabilized. But even though the Navy has stabilized these 
costs, the large investments sunk into the program to date have still 
not yielded commensurate combat capability.
  Since the early stages of LCS procurement, I have attempted to shine 
a light on the lack of planning that has plagued the program. Last 
year, I authored legislation to reduce LCS production and require 
validation by the Department of Defense and the Navy that the program's 
seaframes and mission packages were on schedule and would meet the 
capability requirements of combatant commanders prior to additional 
funding.
  Congress spoke resolutely on the issue approving that legislation and 
sending a clear message the LCS would need to justify its existence 
with meaningful progress toward becoming operational.
  Despite that the cost to complete the construction of the seaframes 
has stabilized over the past few years, LCS continues to face another 
potentially crippling consequence of poor planning, and that is a 
serious lack in capability.
  Just last month, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel identified this 
problem while announcing that the President's budget request for fiscal 
year 2015 would reduce LCS production by 40 percent, from 52 ships to 
32 ships. Secretary Hagel said:

       The LCS was designed to perform certain missions--such as 
     mine-sweeping anti-submarine warfare--in a relatively 
     permissive environment. But we need to closely examine 
     whether the LCS has the independent protection and firepower 
     to operate and survive against a more advanced military 
     adversary and emerging new technologies, especially in the 
     Asia Pacific.

  Other Department of Defense leaders have expressed similar doubts 
about LCS's abilities to survive combat situations. Acting Deputy 
Secretary of Defense Christine Fox in a speech on February 11, 2014, 
said:

       Niche platforms that can conduct a certain mission in a 
     permissive environment have a valuable place in the Navy's 
     inventory, yet we need more ships with the protection and 
     firepower to survive against a more advanced military 
     adversary.

  The prospect of sending LCS into combat with the lives of American 
sailors at risk is even more chilling in the aftermath of the 
Government Accountability Office's July 2013 report on LCS. Early in 
LCS's development, the Navy intended for the ship to be a self-
sufficient combatant that could engage in major combat operations and 
survive in a battlespace actively contested by enemy forces.
  According to the Government Accountability Office, however, more 
recent Navy assessments suggest that LCS has little chance of survival 
in a combat scenario. Instead, LCS can only be safely employed in a 
relatively benign, low-threat environment.
  GAO also found deficiencies in the ability of LCS to operate 
independently in combat, turning a supposedly capable warship into a 
vessel requiring significant support from larger ships of the fleet. 
Such fundamental uncertainty about LCS's capacity to function as a 
warship in a combat environment demonstrates a lack of clarity 
regarding LCS's actual capabilities.
  Recent GAO assessments continue to highlight major problems regarding 
the LCS Program. According to an article last Friday, a soon-to-be 
released GAO report will validate the need for LCS to be subject to 
rigorous testing and evaluation, not just anecdotal lessons learned 
from a single overseas deployment. And there is talk of another 
impending GAO report critical of LCS that will also likely echo the 
issues I have long cited that continue to plague this program.
  GAO is not alone in expressing concern about LCS's capabilities. In 
January 2014 the Department of Defense Director of Operational Test and 
Evaluation published his annual report and noted that weapons systems 
aboard each of the two LCS variants are struggling to demonstrate 
required capabilities. The report noted:

       The Navy has not yet conducted comprehensive operational 
     testing of the LCS [and is] still developing the concept of 
     employment for these ships in each of the mission areas.

  It is worth taking a moment to step back and consider the absurdity 
of this situation. Planning and development of LCS has been going on 
for 12 years, roughly triple the time it took to fight and win the 
Second World War. In that

[[Page 5974]]

time, the Navy has spent billions of dollars and failed to even figure 
out how to use the ships it is procuring once those ships demonstrate 
some semblance of capability.
  And lest we forget, whether LCS will ultimately be operationally 
effective, suitable, and survivable remains at best unclear. Failure 
this comprehensive is incredible, even for our broken defense 
procurement system.
  The individual mission packages that were supposed to give LCS its 
real functionality in the fleet present another area of major concern. 
The LCS's are meant to be outfitted with one of three interchangeable 
mission packages tailored for particular roles in the fleet--
antisubmarine warfare, surface warfare, and mine countermeasures. So 
far, the mission packages have experienced significant performance 
issues.
  The antisubmarine warfare mission package has suffered particularly 
severe setbacks in recent years. When the antisubmarine package was 
tested by the Navy, it actually demonstrated less capability than 
predecessor systems. The Navy subsequently canceled the package and 
reportedly revised its entire strategy for procuring that aspect of 
LCS. The Navy has now stated a goal of fielding the antisubmarine 
mission package by 2018, but no independent assessment has been 
performed to evaluate the likelihood the Navy will meet that 2018 goal. 
The program's performance to date, of course, does not fill me with 
confidence that the goal will be reached on schedule.
  The other mission packages have also experienced major problems. The 
Navy has taken delivery of early versions of the surface warfare and 
mine warfare mission packages. But according to GAO, both packages have 
experienced significant performance issues and neither has yet been 
fully integrated into the LCS seaframes.
  The mine countermeasures mission package, considered by many experts 
to be the most important, is more than 4 years behind schedule. 
According to the DOD's Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, the 
mine countermeasures mission package has yet to demonstrate any of its 
required capabilities.
  Given the utter failure of the mine countermeasures mission package 
to date, the Navy has altered its plan for acquiring this package. The 
full package will be delivered over a series of four increments and, if 
everything goes according to plan, the Navy will successfully 
demonstrate the capability of the fourth and final increment in 2019, 
18 years--18 years--after planning for the LCS Program commenced. Until 
then, the Navy will be forced to retain the current generation of 
minesweeping ships.
  Today, the Navy plans to purchase its final LCS seaframe in 2019, the 
same year when the mine countermeasures package is supposed to be 
ready. If the mine countermeasures package has suffered a delay by that 
point--and with the history of this program to date, a mere 1-year 
delay would qualify as an improvement--the Navy will have an entire 
fleet of LCS's with only two-thirds of their planned capability, even 
if all the other problems with the ships are fixed.
  All of the mission packages need significant further testing and have 
to overcome major integration challenges. That work is likely to drive 
up program costs and leave combatant commanders without the tools or 
capabilities they need for years to come.
  The LCS Program faces a daunting combination of capability failures 
and strategic confusion. The Navy does not know what the LCS seaframes 
will actually be capable of doing once all of them are purchased in 
2019, and it does not know what role they will play, even if 
development miraculously goes according to plan. Against that backdrop, 
the need to slow this procurement is clear.
  Recently, we learned that, at Secretary Hagel's direction, the Navy 
has established a task force to determine how LCS can best serve the 
fleet going forward. The Navy should, above all else, not repeat the 
mistakes of the past, and Congress must hold the Navy to account at 
each step in the process. This means establishing requirements and 
sticking to them, setting a stable design and holding to it, and 
zealously guarding against further cost growth.
  I support Secretary Hagel's decision to limit LCS procurement to 32 
ships. I have recommended further reducing the LCS procurement to 24 
ships. More important than the raw number of ships, however, is the 
manner in which the procurement goes forward. As Congress considers the 
President's 2015 budget request and continues to conduct oversight of 
LCS and every major defense acquisition program, we would be wise to 
understand this particular program's failings or risk repeating them.
  The program is still clearly riddled with uncertainty about what the 
ships will be used for and what they will be capable of. Production 
should not go forward until the Navy and DOD confirm that LCS provides 
greater capabilities than the legacy ships it is intended to replace 
and that the mission packages plus the seaframes have demonstrated the 
combined combat capability that our combatant commanders need.
  I understand that in connection with Secretary Hagel's direction to 
limit LCS's procurement and develop a more capable follow-on ship the 
Navy is underway brainstorming on possible alternatives to LCS that may 
provide it reliably with the capabilities it needs at a comparable 
cost. Before making final decisions on any procurement, however, the 
Navy must first determine what problem it is trying to solve--exactly 
what operational requirements do combatant commanders actually have 
that cannot be met with current capabilities? This is the step the LCS 
Program originally skipped. Only after that basic question is answered 
definitively should the Navy start considering what material solution 
could be brought to bear on that capability gap. On major defense 
acquisition programs, that should always be our approach--LCS or no 
LCS.
  While history of the LCS procurement supports my recommendation that 
we should not procure ships until we know what we want them to do, that 
outcome is also dictated by plain common sense. We live in an age of 
great fiscal uncertainty due to sequestration and other defense budget 
cuts. With that fiscal pressure, there is a much smaller margin for 
error in the procurement world. Every dollar wasted buying ships with 
unclear capabilities for unspecified missions is a dollar that could 
have supported a vital defense activity. The wastefulness of excessive 
concurrency--of buying a system that has not been tested and figuring 
out requirements and fixes on the fly--is more unacceptable than ever 
when so many good programs have to make do with sharply reduced 
funding. I will continue speaking out against wasteful concurrency, 
that is, acquisition malpractice, as I have done for years.
  In today's fiscal world, spending money as we have done in LCS is not 
just reckless, not just wasteful, it is dangerous. It actually weakens 
our national defense. It is my sincere hope and firm conviction that in 
the future we can prove ourselves better stewards of taxpayer money 
than we have in the past. And finally getting LCS right would be a big, 
long overdue step in that direction.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________