To repeal the requirement for reduction of survivor annuities under the Survivor Benefit Plan by veterans' dependency and indemnity compensation.

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR 2013

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of S. 3254, which the clerk will
report by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 3254) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2013 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other
purposes.

Pending:

Kyl amendment No. 3123, to require regular updates of
Congress on the military implications of proposals of the
United States and Russia under consideration in negotiations
on nuclear arms, missile defense, and long-range conventional
strike system matters.
Menendez amendment No. 3232, to enhance sanctions imposed
with respect to Iran.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I would like to take a couple of minutes
this morning to discuss Senator Sessions' amendment which we will be
voting on shortly, amendment No. 3009, which I cosponsor, and explain
my views on why this amendment is important in terms of the balance
this body traditionally and historically should have with the executive
branch of our government.
There are two clarifications in this amendment that I believe are
important in terms of how we develop long-term relationships, security
relationships, with other countries. The first is that, as we know,
recently the President of the United States entered into what they have
termed an ``enduring strategic partnership agreement'' between the
United States and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan which proposes to
establish an enduring strategic partnership. This has been done without
the consent of the Congress. It has been justified based on the
authority of the President to use force in order to respond to these
incidents that began on 9/11.
I believe it is important for us as a body to make the distinction
that the authorization for the use of military force does not in and of
itself authorize the executive branch to enter into long-term security
agreements with another country that can affect the number of forces
that are there. It can affect a broad range of governmental issues that
are far beyond the use of force in terms of dealing with international
terrorism.
This is true in our history. It is actually true in the way these
other countries--Iraq and now Afghanistan--have been dealing with the
same documents. I can recall during the previous administration when
they signed a strategic framework agreement, and then we began working
on the status of forces agreement with Iraq. I called at that time for
this agreement, the strategic framework agreement, which is a long-term
relationship proposed between the United States and Iraq, to be
submitted to the Congress for review. I actually had to go into one of
these rooms where you close the door as if you were reading a top-
secret document even to examine the strategic framework agreement,
which was not classified and which the Iraqi Parliament voted on twice.
We did not even get to vote on it. I do not think that is the way our
system of government should be working.
We are seeing the same situation here with Afghanistan. We should not
be entering into a long-term security relationship with Afghanistan
purely at the discretion of the executive branch. The Congress should
have a part to play in this. That is the second point. The question is,
What should the role of Congress be? I think that is what has paralyzed
us as a body for the 6 years I have been here in the Senate.
This is not a treaty. This would not be a treaty, so we would not
have to go through the entire consent process of a treaty, which could
paralyze our foreign policy. The Presiding Officer and I both have
worked for several years here now trying to get the Law of the Sea
Treaty into place. It has been bouncing around for decades. But it
should be more than what they call ``consultation.'' Every time we talk
to the executive branch--and I am a former member of the executive
branch. I spent 4 years in the Pentagon in the Reagan administration.
They say they have ``consulted,'' and the definition of the
``consultation'' could be the Secretary of State calling the chairman
of the Foreign Relations Committee or the Secretary of Defense calling
the chairman of the Armed Services Committee or coming over for a
meeting. That is not the level of discussion and involvement the
Congress should have when we are talking about long-term commitments
with countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq.
This amendment is not Draconian. It is very sensible. It basically
says that in the situation where we have entered into this proposed
relationship with Afghanistan, the key committees over here in the
Congress should have 30 days to review the documents before they are
put into play. There is no great urgency in terms of when these
documents are implemented. It is the same courtesy--it is not actually
as far as what the Afghan Parliament is going to be able to do on the
other side. For that reason, I commend the Senator from Alabama for
having decided to come forward with this amendment. It has my support.
I yield the floor.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3009, as
modified, and ask for its consideration.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we would need to see the modification
before it is accepted.
Mr. SESSIONS. I believe it is at the desk.
Mr. LEVIN. We would have to reserve the right--if you could call up
the amendment and then hold off on any modification until we can see
it.

Amendment No. 3009

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3009 and ask for
its consideration.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions] proposes an
amendment numbered 3009.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for congressional review of any bilateral security
agreement with Afghanistan)

At the end of subtitle B of title XII, add the following:

SEC. 1221. CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW OF BILATERAL SECURITY
AGREEMENT WITH AFGHANISTAN.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Authorization for the Use of Military Force (Public
Law 107-40; 115 Stat. 224) authorizes the President to use
all necessary and appropriate force against those nations,
organizations, or persons the President determines planned,
authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that
occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such
organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts
of international terrorism against the United States by such
nations, organizations, or persons.
(2) President Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon
Panetta have stated that the United States continues to fight
in Afghanistan to defeat the al Qaeda threat and the Taliban,
which harbored al Qaeda in Afghanistan, where the attacks of
September 11, 2001, were planned and where the attackers
received training.
(3) On May 1, 2012, the United States entered into the
``Enduring Strategic Partnership Agreement Between the United
States of America and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan'',
which establishes an enduring strategic partnership between
the United States and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.
(4) The Agreement reaffirms the presence and operations of
United States Armed Forces in Afghanistan, and establishes
long-term commitments between the two countries, including
the continued commitment

[[Page S7281]]

of United States forces and political and financial support
to the Government of Afghanistan.
(5) The Agreement also commits the United States to
establishing a long-term Bilateral Security Agreement, with
the goal of concluding a Bilateral Security Agreement within
one year to supersede the present Status of Forces agreements
with the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.
(6) Congress was not consulted regarding the framework or
substance of the Agreement.
(7) In the past, Congress has been consulted, and, in some
cases, has provided its advice and consent to ratification of
such agreements, including those where the use of force was
not authorized nor required in the country.
(b) Notification Requirement.--Not later than 30 days
before entering into any Bilateral Security Agreement or
other agreement with the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan that
will affect the Status of Forces agreements and long-term
commitments between the United States and the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan, the President shall submit the
agreement to the appropriate congressional committees for
review. If the President fails to comply with such
requirement, 50 percent of the unobligated balance of the
amounts appropriated or otherwise made available for the
Executive Office of the President shall be withheld.
(c) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--In this
section, the term ``appropriate congressional committees''
means--
(1) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Foreign Relations of the Senate; and
(2) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like just like to say that this
amendment arose after Senator Webb expressed concerns at one of our
Armed Services Committee hearing fundamentally that Iraq and
Afghanistan are voting in their parliaments on the force of status
agreements, and we are not even seeing the agreement here, so I
appreciate his leadership and am glad to work with him on this piece of
legislation. I think his work moves us in the right direction.
We will talk with Chairman Levin to see where we are.
I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I couldn't miss the opportunity to
express our appreciation for the services of Senator Webb. As all of us
know, but it doesn't hurt to be reminded, he is a Vietnam veteran, one
of the most highly decorated veterans in the entire war, a combat
leader of men in fierce combat. He served the country in a number of
different ways and in this Senate. Actually his book, Fields of Fire,
remains the premier novel on the Vietnam War and is the most studied
novel in colleges to this day about the war in Vietnam.
So, at any rate, I just wanted to share those remarks while we had a
minute here and express my appreciation to Senator Webb for his service
to the country and to the Senate.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on these amendments of Senator Sessions and
Senator Webb--and, by the way, I thoroughly and totally join Senator
Sessions in his commends about Senator Webb. I think he spoke for the
entire body when he made those comments.
We had agreed that we would do the following: There are a number of
changes which need to be made in this amendment which the sponsors have
agreed to. There are some additional concerns about this amendment,
which we believe we can take care of in conference. So the suggestion
was made to Senator Sessions and Senator Webb that we voice vote this
at this time, and we address some of those concerns and modifications
in conference, and I would suggest that we do that at this time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there further debate on the
amendment? If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3009) was agreed to.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. I think the order is that we now proceed to consideration
of the Cardin amendment.

Amendment No. 3025

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I call up amendment No. 3025.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report:
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] proposes an
amendment numbered 3025.

Mr. CARDIN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To ensure sufficient sizing of the civilian and contract
services workforces of the Department of Defense)

Strike section 341 and insert the following:

SEC. 341. CIVILIAN AND CONTRACT SERVICES WORKFORCE BALANCE.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense shall, consistent
with the requirements of sections 129 and 129a of title 10,
United States Code, ensure that the civilian and contract
services workforces of the Department of Defense are
sufficiently sized, taking into account military strategy
requirements and military end-strength.
(b) Comptroller General Report.--Not later than 180 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, and annually
thereafter, the Comptroller General of the United States
shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report
assessing the sufficiency of sizing of the civilian and
contract services workforces of the Department of Defense.
The report shall assess whether the sizing is consistent with
workforce management and sourcing laws, including sections
129 and 129a of title 10, United States Code.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there
will now be 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled on
amendment No. 3025 offered by the Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, this amendment would eliminate an
arbitrary cap on the civilian and contractual workforce. The
administration supports this amendment. Without this amendment being
adopted, the Department said it will need to significantly divest
workload and impose workforce caps.
The amount of civilian and contractual workforce should be determined
by mission, by workload and by budget, as the law provides. This
arbitrary cap would be like a second sequestration type of cap on the
civilian and contractual workforce.
My cosponsors include Senators Akaka, Mikulski, Begich, Durbin, Brown
of Ohio, McCaskill, Harkin, Boxer, Leahy, and Tester.
I urge my colleagues to approve the amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this was unanimously approved by the
committee. There is a provision in there that would simply require the
Department to plan to reduce funding for civilian and contractor
personnel by approximately 5 percent, which would be less reduction
than what is contemplated from the military side.
Right now, the President's budget, not counting sequester, would
reduce military personnel by 123,900 men and women serving in the
military or 5.5 percent over 5 years.
Since 2001, the civilian personnel in the Department of Defense has
increased by 100,000, a 16 percent increase and a 37 percent increase
in civilian pay costs.
The Department of Defense continues to be top heavy with
headquarters. The Office of the Secretary will grow by 25 percent from
2001 to 2017.
Look, we all know that the Department of Defense is being downsized,
so there has to be, obviously, a commensurate reduction in civilians,
which is actually less than what is actually contemplated in the
military.
This was unanimously reported, and I have had conversations with the
Secretary of Defense, who agrees that we need to reduce the civilian
personnel as well as the uniformed personnel.
I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed for
10 seconds.

[[Page S7282]]

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment. We are cutting
military end strength by 5 percent over the next 5 years. In this
budget situation, we have no choice but to cut the Defense Department
civilian employee and contractor workforces as well. This gives
flexibility to the Department of Defense when and where to make the
cuts.
We have got to make some reductions in the defense budget. This does
it in a way which is flexible and necessary, so I too oppose the
amendment.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There are 16 seconds remaining.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, let me just point out the civilian
workforce is going to be cut. According to the House Armed Services
Committee, over 10,000 positions will be eliminated in FY12 alone.
The House bill does not contain this provision. This provision
imposes an effective cap on civilian and contractual workers.
Mr. McCAIN. Regular order here.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
Under the previous order, the question is on agreeing to the amendment
of the Senator from Maryland, Mr. Cardin.
Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Maryland be
given an additional 3 minutes, if he so desires.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I will not take 3 minutes.
The point I am bringing up is that what this would do is impose an
additional cap on civilian and contractual. They are already controlled
by law. The law says by mission and budget. That is what it should be.
The administration supports this amendment, and I would urge my
colleagues to approve it.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the
amendment of the Senator from Maryland, Mr. Cardin.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Rockefeller) and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily
absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the
Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr.
Kirk).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
Alexander) would have voted ``nay.''
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 53, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 214 Leg.]

YEAS--41

Akaka
Begich
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Casey
Coons
Durbin
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Kerry
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Lieberman
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb

NAYS--53

Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Bennet
Bingaman
Blunt
Boozman
Brown (MA)
Burr
Carper
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Lee
Levin
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Whitehouse
Wicker

NOT VOTING--6

Alexander
Hatch
Heller
Kirk
Rockefeller
Wyden
The amendment (No. 3025) was rejected.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there is now going to be a 2-minute debate
on the Menendez amendment on Iran sanctions.
What Senator McCain and I asked for last night, and we again ask for
now, is that the Members let us know which amendments they believe need
to be voted on if a rollcall vote and a debate is necessary because we
are going to attempt to put together a unanimous consent agreement
which will lay out the amendments that would be voted on before cloture
next Monday.
It was our expectation by the end of the day that cloture was going
to be filed by the leader. We can try to avoid that problem if we can
work out a finite list of amendments to put in a unanimous consent
agreement so we can work toward the final completion of this bill.
So I urge Members during this period to work with our staffs and let
them know what amendments they believe must be disposed of prior to the
end of this bill.

Amendment No. 3232

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order there will
now be 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on amendment
No. 3232 offered by the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez.
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Menendez and Senator Kirk
for this very important action of tightening sanctions on Iran.
The centrifuges are still spinning in Tehran, and we have enacted
strong sanctions. They have had some effect, but we have not had
sufficient effect.
I thank Senator Menendez and Senator Kirk for this language in this
amendment. I will not go through a list of all the actions that will be
taken against Iran, but the screws need to be tightened. This is an
important act, and it can--I emphasize, can--lead to a way to prevent a
conflagration in the Middle East.
I thank Senator Menendez for his leadership, and I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I thank Senator McCain for his support
and his words, and the chairman for his help in getting us here. This
is a bipartisan amendment that is vital to U.S. national security and
regional stability in the Middle East.
Our most recent sanctions that we passed a year ago 100 to 0 are
working toward crippling Iran's economy, but Iran hasn't quit trying.
That is why we need to go further with this amendment and apply
additional sanctions to Iran's energy, port, shipping, shipbuilding
sectors that support their nuclear program, and the sales of certain
commodities that support those sectors.
Just this week the IAEA said Iran has not slowed down its enrichment
activities. They continue to deny access for inspection of facilities,
and they have actually conducted live tests of conventional explosives
that could be used to detonate a nuclear weapon. We must make clear to
the Iranians that toughing out and waiting out is not an option; that
it will only get worse. And I hope we have, on behalf of Senator Kirk,
myself, Senators Lieberman and Casey, and many other colleagues, the
strong bipartisan vote we had last year.

Sanctions Credibility

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, in August, Congress passed and the
President signed into law the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human
Rights Act of 2012. This measure, coupled with CISADA and last year's
powerful Iran Central Bank legislation authored by Senators Menendez
and Kirk, have helped dramatically to increase pressure on the Iranian
government to halt its illicit nuclear activities. Iran's petroleum
exports have dropped by more

[[Page S7283]]

than half this year, producing losses of over $100 million each day to
Iran's economy. Even so, Iran continues to press forward aggressively
with its enrichment program and to suppress the rights of its citizens.
The bipartisan amendment proposed by Senators Menendez and Kirk to
the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act will further tighten
sanctions on Iran and increase the economic pressure on its leaders. I
have worked closely with Senator Menendez and respect his fierce
commitment to this issue, and to giving the administration all of the
tools it needs to deal with Iran. I support the amendment. Our
sanctions laws have become increasingly complex, however, and to assure
that the new provisions can be effectively implemented, I hope we can
work with officials in the Departments of State and Treasury to
continue to refine these provisions as the bill moves to conference.
This is a complex area of the law, and we need to have a sure hand as
we go forward toward conference, drawing clear lines and avoiding any
unintended consequences that might undermine the credibility of the
overall sanctions regime.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I welcome my colleague's support, and I agree to work
with him to refine the new sanctions provisions contained in this
amendment to make them as workable and effective as possible as the
bill moves forward.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second? There
appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds on
this amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. I strongly support this amendment. It will continue to
tighten sanctions on Iran and to bring into strong participation the
international community.
This amendment is a continuing effort. The administration has made
major efforts. I commend them for it. But this will add great strength
to the existing sanctions which are essential to force Iran to comply
with the international community.
The administration has raised concerns--we know that--about some
provisions of this amendment. They have indicated that the amendment
does not give them sufficient waiver flexibility. The Banking Committee
has raised some issues, and we will try to address, if we can, in an
appropriate way some of these concerns in conference. But I strongly
support this amendment and hope it gets the unanimous support or near
unanimous support in this body.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
question occurs on amendment No. 3232.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Rockefeller) and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily
absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the
Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), and the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
Alexander).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
Alexander) would have voted ``yea,'' and the Senator from Nevada (Mr.
Heller) would have voted ``yea.''
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 215 Leg.]

YEAS--94

Akaka
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Lee
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker

NOT VOTING--6

Alexander
Hatch
Heller
Kirk
Rockefeller
Wyden
The amendment (No. 3232) was agreed to.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are fortunate to have two of the most
seasoned veterans managing this bill. They understand the legislation.
They have worked together for a quarter of a century on this. No one
knows this subject matter better than these two managers.
Having said that, they are now going to put their experience to a
test because they are going to come up with a finite list. People have
wanted to start legislating the way we have legislated. That is what we
are doing here. As I mentioned this morning, we have almost 400
amendments that have been filed on this bill, but that is not unusual.
People have a pent-up desire to offer amendments and we all understand
that. But from that list, these two managers are going to cull a number
of amendments to come up with a finite list; that is, a list of
amendments that should be disposed of.
They are going to do that by unanimous consent, and I hope everyone
will cooperate. They will be as fair as they can to Democrats and
Republicans. People should look at the list. If they don't like it,
then they should talk to one of the managers, but that is the way it
is. There will be no more votes after the next one, but by noon today
there will be a determination as to whether there will be further
activity on this legislation.
We have a vote that is now going to be announced by the Chair in a
minute. I hope everybody understands we have made great progress on
this bill. This legislation has passed 51 consecutive years. This will
be the 52nd year we have passed this bill. It would be untoward and not
good for our fighting men and women not to pass this legislation. Once
we pass it, we can't spend a lot more time on it. This is a massive
bill. It has to go to conference with the House. The two managers and
the conferees have to work something out so we will have a final
product before the end of the year.
Mr. LEVIN. Would the leader yield?
Mr. REID. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. LEVIN. In addition to putting together a finite list, which would
be the amendments which would apparently require rollcall votes, we
will continue to try to clear amendments which can be cleared on both
sides. It is the amendments which we believe would require rollcall
votes in order for us to proceed that we are going to put on a finite
list. So don't give up on amendments just because they are not on the
list. If we indicate to our colleagues that we have a reasonable chance
of clearing those amendments today or Monday, we would add those to the
possibilities.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, again, I hope our colleagues understand we
are either going to do this finite list or we will have cloture and
nonrelevant amendments will automatically fall. I hope everybody
understands this is one of two options, and it seems to me if we agree
on a finite list, we can then have a better chance for amendments to be
considered.
I wish to thank the majority leader and all our colleagues for their
patience throughout this very difficult process. I hope, in the
interests of achieving the objective of passing this legislation, we
will allow the amendments that are relevant and debate and votes.
Mr. REID. Finally, I ask all Senators to know that word ``cloture''
did not purse my lips.
Mr. LEVIN. Would all Senators please note--I wish to thank the leader

[[Page S7284]]

for this--he used the word, referring to Senator McCain and me, as
``seasoned'' Senators rather than older Senators. Thank you.

Amendment No. 3073

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The next amendment to be offered is
amendment No. 3073.
The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I call up amendment No. 3073.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Florida [Mr. Nelson] proposes an amendment
numbered 3073.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To repeal the requirement for reduction of survivor annuities
under the Survivor Benefit Plan by veterans' dependency and indemnity
compensation)

At the end of subtitle D of title VI, add the following:

SEC. 643. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT OF REDUCTION OF SURVIVOR
BENEFITS PLAN SURVIVOR ANNUITIES BY DEPENDENCY
AND INDEMNITY COMPENSATION.

(a) Repeal.--
(1) In general.--Subchapter II of chapter 73 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended as follows:
(A) In section 1450, by striking subsection (c).
(B) In section 1451(c)--
(i) by striking paragraph (2); and
(ii) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs
(2) and (3), respectively.
(2) Conforming amendments.--Such subchapter is further
amended as follows:
(A) In section 1450--
(i) by striking subsection (e);
(ii) by striking subsection (k); and
(iii) by striking subsection (m).
(B) In section 1451(g)(1), by striking subparagraph (C).
(C) In section 1452--
(i) in subsection (f)(2), by striking ``does not apply--''
and all that follows and inserting ``does not apply in the
case of a deduction made through administrative error.''; and
(ii) by striking subsection (g).
(D) In section 1455(c), by striking ``, 1450(k)(2),''.
(b) Prohibition on Retroactive Benefits.--No benefits may
be paid to any person for any period before the effective
date provided under subsection (f) by reason of the
amendments made by subsection (a).
(c) Prohibition on Recoupment of Certain Amounts Previously
Refunded to SBP Recipients.--A surviving spouse who is or has
been in receipt of an annuity under the Survivor Benefit Plan
under subchapter II of chapter 73 of title 10, United States
Code, that is in effect before the effective date provided
under subsection (f) and that is adjusted by reason of the
amendments made by subsection (a) and who has received a
refund of retired pay under section 1450(e) of title 10,
United States Code, shall not be required to repay such
refund to the United States.
(d) Repeal of Authority for Optional Annuity for Dependent
Children.--Section 1448(d) of such title is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Except as provided in
paragraph (2)(B), the Secretary concerned'' and inserting
``The Secretary concerned''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking ``Dependent children.--'' and all that
follows through ``In the case of a member described in
paragraph (1),'' and inserting ``Dependent children annuity
when no eligible surviving spouse.--In the case of a member
described in paragraph (1),''; and
(B) by striking subparagraph (B).
(e) Restoration of Eligibility for Previously Eligible
Spouses.--The Secretary of the military department concerned
shall restore annuity eligibility to any eligible surviving
spouse who, in consultation with the Secretary, previously
elected to transfer payment of such annuity to a surviving
child or children under the provisions of section
1448(d)(2)(B) of title 10, United States Code, as in effect
on the day before the effective date provided under
subsection (f). Such eligibility shall be restored whether or
not payment to such child or children subsequently was
terminated due to loss of dependent status or death. For the
purposes of this subsection, an eligible spouse includes a
spouse who was previously eligible for payment of such
annuity and is not remarried, or remarried after having
attained age 55, or whose second or subsequent marriage has
been terminated by death, divorce or annulment.
(f) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made
by this section shall take effect on the later of--
(1) the first day of the first month that begins after the
date of the enactment of this Act; or
(2) the first day of the fiscal year that begins in the
calendar year in which this Act is enacted.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there
will now be 2 minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to a vote in
relation to amendment No. 3073.
The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I can explain this in 60
seconds. This is the widows and orphans offset. It is a moral issue
because under the Veterans' Administration, someone who dies service
connected gets compensation of about $1,100 a month for their widow. At
the same time, many of those people have a life insurance contract, an
annuity, called a survivor benefit plan. It pays equally the same
amount. Current law offsets the two.
The Senate has passed this six times in the last decade, and we have
whittled away at that offset in conference, but the major part of the
offset is still there. That is the essence for the widows and orphans.
We have seen the movie ``Lincoln.'' Remember what Lincoln said in his
second inaugural address; that the cost of war is borne not only by
those who fight but by their widows and orphans.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time in opposition?
The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I strongly support the policy Senator
Nelson has laid out. As a matter of fact, I have voted for it every
single time he has brought it to the floor, and I thank him for
pointing out this problem that exists.
However, circumstances are different this time. We are all operating
under the Budget Control Act. The Nation is watching as we try to deal
with fiscal issues that are before us. The amounts that are in the
Budget Control Act are counted as it relates to dealing with our
deficit and, unfortunately, this is not offset over the next decade,
and that violates the budget by $7 billion.
For that reason, the pending measure, amendment No. 3073 to S. 3254,
the National Defense Reauthorization Act, would cause the underlying
legislation to exceed the authorizing committee's section 302(a)
allocation of new budget authority for outlays. Therefore, I raise a
point of order against the measure pursuant to section 302(f) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
I encourage all of us who want to solve this problem before the year
ends to vote against it. I thank the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Florida is
recognized.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I move to waive and ask for the yeas and nays.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mr. Murray),
the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller), and the Senator from
Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the
Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from Texas (Mrs.
Hutchison), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
Alexander) would have voted ``nay,'' and the Senator from Utah (Mr.
Hatch) would have voted ``yea.''
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 58, nays 34, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 216 Leg.]

YEAS--58

Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Casey
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rubio
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker

[[Page S7285]]

NAYS--34

Ayotte
Barrasso
Burr
Carper
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kyl
Lee
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter

NOT VOTING--8

Alexander
Hatch
Heller
Hutchison
Kirk
Murray
Rockefeller
Wyden
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 58, the
nays are 34. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of
order is sustained and the amendment falls.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.

Amendment No. 3123, as Modified

Mr. KYL. If the Democratic manager of the bill has nothing right at
this moment, I wish to modify an amendment which is at the desk, No.
3123, and ask that the amendment be withdrawn and the Senate consider,
instead, the amendment I have at the desk.
Mr. LEVIN. Would the Senator yield, because I want to make sure we
are on the same track.
Mr. KYL. I yield to the Senator.
Mr. LEVIN. Is this the amendment that has been amended after
discussions with Senator Kerry?
Mr. KYL. That is correct.
Mr. LEVIN. Then is it the Senator's intent to send a new amendment to
the desk? Is that it?
Mr. KYL. The original amendment, No. 3123, would be withdrawn. The
modification of that amendment, as written by Senator Kerry, and I
believe cleared by the Senator's side, would be the modified.
Mr. LEVIN. So, in other words, it would be the same numbered
amendment, as modified?
Mr. KYL. That is correct.
Mr. LEVIN. What is the intent of my friend from Arizona to do with
that amendment now?
Mr. KYL. To make about a 45-second statement.
Mr. LEVIN. Then have it adopted?
Mr. KYL. Eventually, but not today.
Mr. LEVIN. Not to have it adopted at this time by voice vote?
Mr. KYL. Correct, although I would say I am not going to need a
rollcall vote at the end.
Mr. LEVIN. At some point the Senator would be happy to take a voice
vote on it?
Mr. KYL. Yes. This amendment is also offered by Senators Lieberman,
Inhofe, Risch, Lugar, Sessions, DeMint, Cornyn, Rubio, Wicker, Ayotte,
Collins, Corker, and Vitter. I do understand it has been cleared by
both sides, and I do appreciate the cooperation with Senator Kerry.
The amendment provides that the administration shall brief the
appropriate committees on the dialogue between the United States and
Russia on issues related to or limits on or controls on nuclear arms,
missile defense systems, or long-range conventional strike systems.
I think it is in the administration's interests to consult with the
Congress and keep us adequately briefed on these discussions because
they could, of course, eventually lead to an agreement which might then
require the advice and consent of the Senate.
I note former Senator Arthur Vandenburg first said, ``If I'm going to
be in on the crash landing, I want to be in on the takeoff,'' meaning,
of course, that it is much easier for the administration to obtain our
consent if they seek advice during the consultation process. I would
confess this amendment was prompted by recent press stories, including
one on November 8, which reported that our Ambassador to Russia,
Michael McFaul said, ``President Obama would like to have a serious
conversation with President Putin about a further round of reductions
in nuclear weapons to build on the START treaty.''
I conclude that another round of negotiations or discussions with
Russia concerning nuclear arms will be extremely complicated and
important and is likely to concern the missile defenses as conventional
long-range strike systems, about which I know I and others have serious
misgivings. I think this suggests the necessity and the desirability of
the kind of consultation we would be requesting of the administration
prior to any agreement being reached.
I appreciate my colleagues' indulgence. At the appropriate time I
will ask for approval of the amendment, as modified.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment is so modified.
The amendment (No. 3123), as modified,is as follows:

(Purpose: To require briefings on dialogue between the United States
and the Russian Federation on nuclear arms, missile defense, and long-
range conventional strike systems)

At the end of subtitle G of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1074. BRIEFINGS ON DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES
AND THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION ON NUCLEAR ARMS,
MISSILE DEFENSE, AND LONG-RANGE CONVENTIONAL
STRIKE SYSTEMS.

(a) Briefings.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, and not less than twice each year
thereafter, the President, or the President's designee, shall
brief the Committees on Foreign Relations and Armed Services
of the Senate on the dialogue between the United States and
the Russian Federation on issues related to limits or
controls on nuclear arms, missile defense systems, or long-
range conventional strike systems.
(b) Sense of the Senate on Certain Agreements.--It is the
sense of the Senate that any agreement between the United
States and the Russian Federation related to missile defense,
nuclear weapons, or long-range conventional strike systems
obligating the United States to reduce or limit the Armed
Forces or armaments of the United States in any militarily
significant manner may be made only pursuant to the treaty-
making power of the President as set forth in Article II,
section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Let me thank Senator Kyl with the way in which he has
worked with Senator Kerry. It is very constructive and very important.
I want to tell him how much we all appreciate that working together.
I believe Senator Shaheen is going to want to be recognized for up to
10 minutes to talk on an amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak to a provision that is
actually already in this bill, the NDAA authorization bill before us.
It is a provision that would provide for reproductive health parity for
women in the military.
You know, we talk a lot in this Chamber and in the Armed Services
Committee about the service of our men and women in uniform. We talk
about their courage in the face of our enemies, we talk about their
selflessness as they continually deploy around the world, sometimes
uprooting their families and sometimes leaving them behind. We talk
about our responsibilities to the men and women who are serving, from
the tools they will need to accomplish their missions to the support
they have earned when they return home.
I am pleased, as I know we all are, about the growing recognition of
the unprecedented contribution our female servicemembers are making to
our national defense. There are over 214,000 women serving in our Armed
Forces. They make up over 14 percent of our total Armed Forces. Women
are flying our F-15 Strike Eagles, Apaches, and Black Hawks. Women are
training to be Marine Corps infantry officers and working alongside our
special operations units in Afghanistan. Women are an integral part of
nearly all of our military operations. Earlier this year the Department
of Defense opened 14,000 new positions to women.
When he was asked about the move, Secretary Panetta said, ``Through
their courage, sacrifice, patriotism and great skill, women have proven
their ability to serve in an expanding number of roles on and off the
battlefield.''
The women serving in the U.S. military continue to overcome barriers
and strive for new opportunities to serve their country. They have
carried on the finest traditions of our military and should make us all
very proud.
Yet despite their service, women in the military continue to face
discrimination when it comes to reproductive

[[Page S7286]]

health care. In the United States, women are receiving health care
through Medicaid, Medicare, the Federal Employees Health Benefits
Program, and the Indian Health Service, so all of the Federal health
care programs. All have access to the care they need if they face
pregnancy resulting from rape or incest.
Even women incarcerated in Federal prison are protected in the case
of rape. Yet right now our women in the military are not granted the
same access to abortion services in cases of rape or incest.
To be clear, a general ban on abortion coverage remains for millions
of women who receive health care through the Federal Government.
However, in nearly all cases, these bans allow for coverage if the life
of the mother is in danger or if the pregnancy is the result of rape or
incest. It is simply unfair that military women continue to be denied
such reproductive health care.
Like so many of us in the Chamber, I was so encouraged that during
this year's markup of the NDAA, a strong bipartisan majority of my
colleagues on the Armed Services Committee, including Chair Levin and
Ranking Member McCain, supported providing reproductive health parity
to our servicewomen.
The NDAA bill before us will finally bring the Department of Defense
policy on abortion coverage in line with the policies governing the
rest of the Federal Government.
Over the coming weeks, I will continue to work with my colleagues
here in the Senate, many of whom are long-time champions on this issue,
to ensure that this provision is included during the conference with
the House and ultimately signed by the President.
In the end, this is an issue of basic equality. Women serving in our
Armed Forces should be able to access the same reproductive health
services as the civilians they protect. Access to care should no longer
be one of the sacrifices women in the U.S. military are forced to make.
Women in the military deserve the best, most comprehensive health care
we can provide.
I am encouraged by the bipartisan support this provision has received
thus far, and I am hopeful we will see it become law this year. It is
way past time, and it is the least we can do for our female
servicemembers.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and the ranking member, for your
support on this provision.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire. She is an
advocate and a very active and important member of our committee.
I also would wish to thank her for arranging yesterday's event on
behalf of and in memory of one of the great Members of this body,
Warren Rudman. I thought it was a wonderful event, and I thank the
Senator, both senators from New Hampshire, for arranging what I think
was a very fitting tribute to one of the real giants of the Senate in
the New Hampshire tradition, so I thank the Senator.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. If I could briefly reply, I very much appreciate the
Senator's remarks about yesterday's reception and especially the
wonderful tribute you made to Senator Rudman, who was a real giant, not
just in the Senate but, of course, in New Hampshire. It was such a
remarkable collection of celebrated political people from this
country's history who were there yesterday to give tribute, and I so
appreciate that.
Also, I so much appreciate Senator McCain's support for this
provision in the bill and thank the Senator for that.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, before Senator Shaheen leaves the floor, I
want to add my thanks to her and for those words expressed by Senator
McCain. Senator Shaheen is, indeed, an extraordinary Member of this
body and a great asset for us on the Armed Services Committee. I very
much appreciate her work on so many issues including the one she just
spoke about.
I so much regret I was unable to be at that event yesterday for
Senator Rudman, because my memories of him are warm and I had very much
looked forward to being there. I could not be there, but I know that
Senator McCain--I don't know who else spoke. I have heard rave reviews
about the quality of the speeches.
Mr. McCAIN. The Vice President of the United States also was in
attendance.
Mr. LEVIN. And I understand that there was a quantity, and there was
also a fairly long speech by the Vice President which delayed things on
the floor by a few hours--by a few minutes, excuse me. But I hear it
was a wonderful tribute. I only wish I could have been there.
Mr. McCAIN. As my friend from Michigan knows, the Vice President of
the United States is not notorious for his brevity.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Yes, there was an interesting bet between former
Secretary Cohen and the Vice President relative to who would have the
shortest speech, and I think the Vice President lost that.
But I thank the Senator for his kind words, and the Senator would
have loved it.
Mr. LEVIN. I didn't have to be there to know that the Vice President
would lose any bet where he is betting anyone that he will be shorter
than anybody on any subject.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, 15 months ago in August, the debt
ceiling of the United States was reached; that is, that we had borrowed
all of the money we could lawfully borrow. A big discussion occurred
and a number of things came out of it.
Finally, it was agreed to raise the debt ceiling so the government
could continue to borrow. Almost 40 cents of every dollar we spend now
is borrowed. It is unbelievable, but it is true. We also agreed that
over 10 years, we would reduce spending by $2.1 trillion. That is a lot
of money, but compared to what we are spending, it is not so much.
For example, we were expected to spend, over the next 10 years, $47
trillion over the--basically, $37 trillion we would spend now if we
maintain the current level, and we agreed to reduce it from 47 to 45.
Spending over 10 years would grow by $8 trillion instead of $10
trillion, not something that would destroy the Republic, but it was a
step of noticeable weight to change the debt course of America. We
still remain, after that agreement, totally on an unsustainable debt
course. We have more work to do.

But the point I want to make is it passed both Houses of Congress, it
had the support of both leaders and the President of the United States.
It didn't freeze spending in a lot of things, it didn't cut spending in
a lot of things, but it did reduce the growth of spending and give us
some real teeth through that on certain accounts--not all accounts.
Well, today was the third vote in recent weeks in which this Senate
said: We will abide by and adhere to the agreement we reached. We will
not spend more than we agreed to spend just August a year ago. This is
a 10-year agreement. We promised to stay within those limits for 10
years. Yet within 15 months, a little over a year, we have now had the
fifth bill on the floor of the Senate that violated that agreement. And
this is the third time the Members of the Senate said: No, we are not
going to keep violating that agreement.
This survivor benefit program reform is something I have favored. I
worked with Senator Nelson years ago. I was a cosponsor with him of the
legislation, and we have tried a lot of ways to do it. But we agreed to
spending limitations. The amendment Senator Nelson offered today had a
great goal, it is something I think we can figure a way to advance for
sure, but there was no reduction of spending and no pay-for for this
amendment. There just wasn't. At the last moment he walks in with $7
billion--almost $7 billion--in new spending, none of which was paid
for, in blatant, direct, total violation of the agreement we reached in
August a year ago.
We had Members, Republican Members--and I appreciate Senator Carper
breaking ranks and voting to uphold the budget--who wanted to vote for
this and felt bad they were not able to allow the amendment to advance,
but it violates the budget. So I was proud

[[Page S7287]]

of that. I think it is the right thing for America.
We can do this. I believe our message is being sent. We brought up a
popular bill, the Sportsmen's Act, and I was for that, but it wasn't
paid for or it spent more money than we agreed to in the Budget Control
Act. So this amendment would have spent more money--$7 billion more
than we agreed to. We blocked the Sportsmen's Act and it was $140
million more than we agreed to. The Senate said no, even though many of
us liked what was in that bill. This was $7 billion above what we
agreed to, and even with the good cause we said we should adhere to the
limits we have.
If we have new priorities that we want to fund, can't we find
wasteful spending somewhere in our government? One of the dysfunctions
we have, one of the reasons it is so hard to get something such as that
accomplished and fund a new spending program without borrowing the
money, just increasing the debt, is everybody is jealous of their
account. How silly is that. We should all be focusing on the national
interest. So when we say we are going to reduce this program over here
and we are going to pay for the benefits for widows, people
automatically say: No, you can't take my money. But it is all the
taxpayers' money, isn't it? It is not this Senator's money or this
committee's money, it is not this program's money. It is all the
taxpayers' money.
We have been in denial. We think business as usual is going to
continue, but this country has never, ever, ever been in a more
systemic, dangerous position with regard to our finances. Never. We
have had expert testimony on that. So we have to be honest about it. We
have to do the right thing. We can't have a Senator waltz in, even with
something we would wish to support, and ask us to vote for it when it
adds $7 billion above the amount we agreed to spend. I wanted to say
that because it is a troubling situation for us.
One more thing. The President of the United States is the one person
who speaks for America. He is now pushing and advancing an agenda that
seems to me to raise taxes. But will it reduce spending? No. It seems
the new taxes are to fund new spending. Well, we don't have the
numbers, so I am going to be asking him to see the numbers. I am the
ranking member on the Budget Committee. I want to see how much new
spending they have and how much new taxes they have, and if it is like
what we have been seeing, there is a lot of flimflam. We had a budget
projection that was voted down 100 percent, not a single vote. The
budget he sent out earlier this year increased taxes $1.8 trillion but
increased spending $1.4. So it didn't pay down the debt.
I hope the President will look the American people in the eye and
tell them we are on an unsustainable course. I have not heard him say
that. Why won't he say that? His own debt commissioner, Erskine Bowles,
said we face the most predictable debt crisis in our Nation's history.
Why won't the President say we can't continue on this path and we have
to change? Why won't he say we need to tighten our belt across the
government? This is one of the problems we have at the end of this
year.
I wanted to say to my friends who may have seen this differently that
those people who voted a few minutes ago to uphold the budget, not to
waive the Budget Act but to stay with the budget agreement we signed, I
believe were doing what they truly felt was in the best interest of
America. I don't think they should be in any way accused of being hard-
hearted. It is time for us to at least agree to stand by the numbers we
have agreed to.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about
two of my amendments to the Defense authorization bill. I will maybe at
a later point speak on some of the other amendments I had filed, but I
am not going to offer the amendments at this time.
I first rise to speak on the Udall-Corker amendment No. 3049. Last
year I introduced S. 1798, the Open Burn Pits Registry Act with Senator
Corker. We have met with veterans and Active-duty members of the
military and they have told us how important it is that we act now on
this issue. The Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee agrees and has
passed the legislation after holding hearings.
This week, Senator Corker and I submitted amendment No. 3049 to the
Defense authorization bill because our veterans and Active-duty members
suffering from exposure to burn pits should not have to wait any
longer.
I began this work because of servicemembers such as MSgt Jesse Baca,
a member of the New Mexico Air National Guard, and his wife Maria.
Master Sergeant Baca was stationed in Balad, Iraq, and exposed to burn
pits. Because of the burn pits he has battled cancer, chronic
bronchialitis, chemical-induced asthma, brain lesions, TBI, PTSD, and
numerous other ailments. He knows firsthand the suffering caused by
burn pits and the need for answers.
In both Afghanistan and Iraq, open air burn pits were widely used at
forward operating bases. Disposing of trash and other debris was a
major challenge. Commanders had to find a way to dispose of the waste
while concentrating on the important mission at hand. The solution that
was chosen, however, had serious risks. Pits of waste were set on fire,
sometimes using jet fuel for ignition.
For example, the air samples at Joint Base Balad turned up some nasty
stuff: particulate matter, chemicals that form from the incomplete
burning of coal, oil, and gas, garbage, or other organic substances,
also volatile organic compounds such as acetone and benzene--benzene is
known to cause leukemia--and dioxins associated with Agent Orange.
A scientific study by the American Lung Association found the
following:

Emissions from burning waste contain fine particulate
matter, sulfur dioxides, carbon monoxide, volatile organic
compounds and various irritant gases such as nitrogen oxides
that can scar the lungs.

All of this was in the air and our veterans have begun to raise the
alarm.
We are forever in debt for their service so we must ask the question:
How did these burn pits impact the health of our returning heroes? This
amendment is a step toward finding the answers we owe them.
This amendment is supported by numerous groups, including Burn Pits
360, Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Association of the U.S. Navy,
Retired Enlisted Association, Uniformed Services Disabled Retirees, and
the National Military Family Association.
I urge the Senate to adopt this amendment so that Master Sergeant
Baca and his fellow servicemembers and veterans can begin to heal.
Now I want to speak about a second amendment. This is an amendment
that deals with the issue of buying American solar. This amendment is
Udall No. 3150, sponsored by Senators Schumer, Bingaman, and Wyden.
Solar power increases energy security for American military
installations, but we should be using Buy American- compliant solar
panels. The Department of Defense is a leader on utilizing solar power,
not for environmental reasons but for energy security reasons. When we
use taxpayer funds to support military solar power, we need a level
playing field for U.S. solar manufacturers in the contracting process.
Today we have U.S. military bases with Chinese solar that violates the
trade laws, but there is no U.S. solar on Chinese military bases.
The 2011 Defense authorization bill took an important step to clarify
DOD's Buy American Act requirements, making sure they apply to solar.
My amendment is needed to close existing loopholes in the 2011 Buy
American solar requirements. It would ensure Buy American standards
apply to solar on DOD property that is used to meet DOD energy goals.
This amendment is nearly identical to the one passed on voice vote
last year but dropped in conference with the House. The change from
last year's amendment is a 1-year term so we can test this provision.
CBO estimated the cost of this amendment as insignificant, so we know
this amendment does not raise costs. The difference in price is very
small. Chinese solar now has significant tariffs. Nations that are in
the WTO are not discriminated against. Buy American does not bar
nations that allow reciprocal access to U.S. firms. Existing
exemptions, such as availability and cost, still apply. We do not
expect this to harm DOD's procurement in any way.

[[Page S7288]]

I would once again urge the Senate, when we have the opportunity, to
adopt this amendment.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warner). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in a moment I am going to call up a list of
nine amendments which have been cleared by Senator McCain and myself.
We expect that there will be, in perhaps an hour or so, an additional
list of perhaps 15 or 20 cleared amendments. Shortly thereafter it
would be our expectation to propound a unanimous consent proposal with
a finite list of amendments that would be considered before final
passage.
At the time we do that, we would give our colleagues perhaps 20
minutes after we read that proposed unanimous consent agreement to come
to the floor, if they choose, and talk to us about it or, if they so
choose, to object.
We hope that will not happen, obviously. We worked very hard with
colleagues. Nonetheless, that is the procedure we are planning on
following.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.

Amendments Nos. 3052, 3075, 3133, 3182, 3183, 3233, 3236, 3248, 3283 En
Bloc

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I now call up a list of nine amendments
which have been cleared, as I indicated before: McCain amendment No.
3052, Whitehouse amendment No. 3075, Snowe amendment No. 3133, Sanders
amendment No. 3182, Sanders amendment No. 3183, Warner amendment No.
3233, Coburn amendment No. 3236, Sanders amendment No. 3248, Rubio
amendment No. 3283.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection the
amendments are considered en bloc.
Is there further debate on the amendments? If not, the question is on
agreeing to the amendments.
The amendments were agreed to, as follows:

amendment no. 3052

(Purpose: To provide a military resource plan to meet the United States
Force Posture Strategy in the Asia Pacific Region)

At the end of subtitle F of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1064. REPORT ON MILITARY RESOURCES NECESSARY TO EXECUTE
UNITED STATES FORCE POSTURE STRATEGY IN THE
ASIA PACIFIC REGION.

(a) Review Required.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense shall, in
consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
conduct a comprehensive review of the national defense
strategy, force structure, force modernization plans,
infrastructure, budget plan, and other elements of the
defense program and policies of the United States with regard
to the Asia Pacific region to determine the resources,
equipment, and transportation required to meet the strategic
and operational plans of the United States.
(2) Elements.--The review required under paragraph (1)
shall include the following elements:
(A) The force structure, force modernization plans,
infrastructure, budget plan, and other elements of the
defense program of the United States associated with the Asia
Pacific region that would be required to execute successfully
the full range of missions called for in the national defense
strategy.
(B) An estimate of the timing for initial and final
operational capability for each unit based in, realigned
within, or identified for support to the Asia Pacific region.
(C) An assessment of the strategic and tactical sea,
ground, and air transportation required for the forces
assigned to the Asia Pacific region to meet strategic and
operational plans.
(D) The specific capabilities, including the general number
and type of specific military platforms, their permanent
station, and planned forward operating locations needed to
achieve the strategic and warfighting objectives identified
in the review.
(E) The forward presence, phased deployments, pre-
positioning, and other anticipatory deployments of manpower
or military equipment necessary for conflict deterrence and
adequate military response to anticipated conflicts.
(F) The budget plan that would be required to provide
sufficient resources to execute successfully the full range
of missions and phased operations in the Asia Pacific region
at a low-to-moderate level of risk and any additional
resources (beyond those programmed in the current future-
years defense program) required to achieve such a level of
risk.
(G) Budgetary recommendations that are not constrained to
comply with and are fully independent of the budget submitted
to Congress by the President pursuant to section 1105 of
title 31, United States Code.
(b) CJCS Review.--Upon the completion of the review under
subsection (a), the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
shall prepare and submit to the Secretary of Defense the
Chairman's assessment of the review, including the Chairman's
assessment of risk and a description of the capabilities
needed to address such risk.
(c) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than one year after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall
submit to the congressional defense committees a report on
the results of the review required under subsection (a).
(2) Content.--The report required under paragraph (1) shall
include the following elements:
(A) A description of the elements set forth under
subsection (a)(1).
(B) A description of the assumptions used in the
examination, including assumptions relating to--
(i) the status of readiness of the Armed Forces;
(ii) the cooperation of allies, mission-sharing, and
additional benefits to and burdens on the Armed Forces
resulting from coalition operations;
(iii) warning times;
(iv) levels of engagement in operations other than war and
smaller-scale contingencies and withdrawal from such
operations and contingencies;
(v) the intensity, duration, and military and political
end-states of conflicts and smaller-scale contingencies; and
(vi) the roles and responsibilities that would be
discharged by contractors.
(C) Any other matters the Secretary of Defense considers
appropriate.
(D) The assessment of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff under subsection (b), including related comments of the
Secretary of Defense.
(3) Form.--The report required under paragraph (1) may be
submitted in classified or unclassified form.

amendment no. 3075

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on the continuing progress
of the Department of Defense in implementing its Item Unique
Identification Initiative)

At the end of subtitle B of title VIII, add the following:

SEC. 826. SENSE OF SENATE ON THE CONTINUING PROGRESS OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE IN IMPLEMENTING ITS ITEM
UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION INITIATIVE.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) In 2003, the Department of Defense initiated the Item
Unique Identification (IUID) Initiative, which requires the
marking and tracking of assets deployed throughout the Armed
Forces or in the possession of Department contractors.
(2) The Initiative has the potential for realizing
significant cost savings and improving the management of
defense equipment and supplies throughout their lifecycle.
(3) The Initiative can help the Department combat the
growing problem of counterfeits in the military supply chain.
(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--
(1) to support efforts by the Department of Defense to
implement the Item Unique Identification Initiative;
(2) to support measures to verify contractor compliance
with section 252.211-7003 (entitled ``Item Identification and
Valuation'') of the Defense Supplement to the Federal
Acquisition Regulation, on Unique Identification, which
states that a unique identification equivalent recognized by
the Department is required for certain acquisitions;
(3) to encourage the Armed Forces to adopt and implement
Item Unique Identification actions and milestones; and
(4) to support investment of sufficient resources and
continued training and leadership to enable the Department to
capture meaningful data and optimize the benefits of the Item
Unique Identification Initiative.

amendment no. 3133

(Purpose: To terminate the Federal authorization of the National
Veterans Business Development Corporation)

At the end of subtitle H of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1084. NATIONAL VETERANS BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION.

(a) In General.--The Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et
seq.) is amended by striking section 33 (15 U.S.C. 657c).
(b) Corporation.--On and after the date of enactment of
this Act, the National Veterans Business Development
Corporation and any successor thereto may not represent that
the corporation is federally chartered or in any other manner
authorized by the Federal Government.
(c) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Small business act.--The Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
631 et seq.), as amended by this section, is amended--
(A) by redesignating sections 34 through 45 as sections 33
through 44, respectively;
(B) in section 9(k)(1)(D) (15 U.S.C. 638(k)(1)(D)), by
striking ``section 34(d)'' and inserting ``section 33(d)'';

[[Page S7289]]

(C) in section 33 (15 U.S.C. 657d), as so redesignated--
(i) by striking ``section 35'' each place it appears and
inserting ``section 34'';
(ii) in subsection (a)--

(I) in paragraph (2), by striking ``section 35(c)(2)(B)''
and inserting ``section 34(c)(2)(B)'';
(II) in paragraph (4), by striking ``section 35(c)(2)'' and
inserting ``section 34(c)(2)''; and
(III) in paragraph (5), by striking ``section 35(c)'' and
inserting ``section 34(c)''; and

(iii) in subsection (h)(2), by striking ``section 35(d)''
and inserting ``section 34(d)'';
(D) in section 34 (15 U.S.C. 657e), as so redesignated--
(i) by striking ``section 34'' each place it appears and
inserting ``section 33''; and
(ii) in subsection (c)(1), by striking section
``34(c)(1)(E)(ii)'' and inserting section
``33(c)(1)(E)(ii)'';
(E) in section 36(d) (15 U.S.C. 657i(d)), as so
redesignated, by striking ``section 43'' and inserting
``section 42'';
(F) in section 39(d) (15 U.S.C. 657l(d)), as so
redesignated, by striking ``section 43'' and inserting
``section 42''; and
(G) in section 40(b) (15 U.S.C. 657m(b)), as so
redesignated, by striking ``section 43'' and inserting
``section 42''.
(2) Title 10.--Section 1142(b)(13) of title 10, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``and the National
Veterans Business Development Corporation''.
(3) Title 38.--Section 3452(h) of title 38, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``any of the'' and all that
follows and inserting ``any small business development center
described in section 21 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
648), insofar as such center offers, sponsors, or cosponsors
an entrepreneurship course, as that term is defined in
section 3675(c)(2).''.
(4) Food, conservation, and energy act of 2008.--Section
12072(c)(2) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
(15 U.S.C. 636g(c)(2)) is amended by striking ``section 43 of
the Small Business Act, as added by this Act'' and inserting
``section 42 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657o)''.
(5) Veterans entrepreneurship and small business
development act of 1999.--Section 203(c)(5) of the Veterans
Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act of 1999
(15 U.S.C. 657b note) is amended by striking ``In cooperation
with the National Veterans Business Development Corporation,
develop'' and inserting ``Develop''.

amendment no. 3182

(Purpose: To require an annual report on Federal contracting fraud)

At the end of subtitle E of title VIII, add the following:

SEC. 888. ANNUAL REPORT ON DEFENSE CONTRACTING FRAUD.

(a) Annual Study and Report.--The Secretary of Defense
shall conduct an annual study on defense contracting fraud
and submit a report containing the findings of such study to
the congressional defense committees.
(b) Report Contents.--The report required under subsection
(a) shall include with respect to the most recent reporting
period the following elements:
(1) An assessment of the total value of Department of
Defense contracts entered into to with contractors that have
been indicted for, settled charges of, been fined by any
Federal department or agency for, or been convicted of fraud
in connection with any contract or other transaction entered
into with the Federal Government.
(2) Recommendations by the Inspector General of the
Department of Defense or other appropriate Department of
Defense official regarding how to penalize contractors
repeatedly involved in fraud in connection with contracts or
other transactions entered into with the Federal Government,
including an update on implementation by the Department of
any previous such recommendations.

amendment no. 3183

(Purpose: To require public availability of the database of senior
Department officials seeking employment with defense contractors)

At the end of subtitle D of title VIII, add the following:

SEC. 888. PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF DATABASE OF SENIOR
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE OFFICIALS SEEKING
EMPLOYMENT WITH DEFENSE CONTRACTORS.

Section 847(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181; 10 U.S.C. 1701
note) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(3) Public availability of information.--The Secretary of
Defense shall make available online to the public any
information contained in the database or repository required
under paragraph (1) that is not confidential, personal, or
proprietary in nature.''.

amendment no. 3233

(Purpose: To promote a more efficient, responsive, and effective
bilateral defense trade relationship between the United States and
India)

At the end of subtitle D of title XII, add the following:

SEC. 1246. BILATERAL DEFENSE TRADE RELATIONSHIP WITH INDIA.

(a) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall
submit to the congressional defense committees a report that
articulates the vision of the Department of Defense for
defense trade relations between the United States and India
within the context of the overall bilateral defense
relationship.
(2) Content.--The report required under paragraph (1) shall
include the following elements:
(A) A description of the Department's approach for
normalizing defense trade.
(B) An assessment of the defense capabilities that could
enhance cooperation and coordination between the Governments
of the United States and India on matters of shared security
interests.
(b) Comprehensive Policy Review.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense shall lead a
comprehensive policy review to examine the feasibility of
engaging in co-production and co-development defense projects
with India.
(2) Scope.--The policy review should--
(A) examine the parameters and requirements for United
States-India cooperation as well as the terms and conditions
India must fulfill to broach such cooperation; and
(B) consider potential areas of cooperation, including the
possibility of co-producing a training aircraft and co-
developing counter-IED technology or individual soldier
capabilities.
(c) Sense of Congress on International Initiatives.--It is
the sense of Congress that the Department of Defense, in
coordination with the Department State, should--
(1) conduct a review of all United States-India bilateral
working groups dealing with high technology transfers,
including technology security and licensing for dual-use and
munitions licenses, and determine the feasibility of
establishing a single United States Government working group
dedicated to strategic technology trade;
(2) engage counterparts in the Government of India in an
intensified dialogue on the current challenges related to the
compatibility of the Foreign Military Sales and direct
commercial sales programs with the Indian Defense Procurement
Procedure (DPP), and steps to improve compatibility;
(3) engage counterparts in the Government of India in a
dialogue about the elements of an effective defense
industrial base, including personnel training, quality
assurance, and manufacturing procedures;
(4) consider the establishment of orientation programs for
new defense officials in the Government of India about the
procedures for United States defense sales, including
licensing processes; and
(5) continue and deepen ongoing efforts to assist the
Government of India in developing its defense acquisition
expertise by assisting with the development of training
institutions and human capital.

amendment no. 3236

(Purpose: To ensure that the Deputy Chief Management Officer of the
Department of Defense obtains information from the military departments
and Defense Agencies necessary to conduct defense business system
investment reviews)

At the end of subtitle A of title IX, add the following:

SEC. 903. INFORMATION FOR DEPUTY CHIEF MANAGEMENT OFFICER OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FROM THE MILITARY
DEPARTMENTS AND DEFENSE AGENCIES FOR DEFENSE
BUSINESS SYSTEM INVESTMENT REVIEWS.

Section 2222(g) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3)(A) The investment management process required by
paragraph (1) shall include requirements for the military
departments and the Defense Agencies to submit to the Deputy
Chief Management Officer such information on covered defense
business system programs as the Deputy Chief Management
Officer shall require for the review of defense business
system programs under the process. Such information shall be
submitted to the Deputy Chief Management Officer in a
standardized format established by the Deputy Chief
Management Officer for purposes of this paragraph.

amendment no. 3248

(Purpose: To amend the Federal renewable energy purchase requirement to
include geothermal heat pumps)

At the end of subtitle B of title XXXI, add the following:

SEC. 3122. RENEWABLE ENERGY.

Section 203(b)(2) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42
U.S.C. 15852(b)(2)) is amended by striking ``geothermal,''
and inserting ``geothermal (including geothermal heat
pumps),''.

amendment no. 3283

(Purpose: To require a report on implementation by the Government of
Bahrain of the recommendations contained in the Report of the Bahrain
Independent Commission of Inquiry)

At the end of subtitle C of title XII, add the following:

SEC. 1233. REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION BY GOVERNMENT OF BAHRAIN
OF RECOMMENDATIONS IN REPORT OF THE BAHRAIN
INDEPENDENT COMMISSION OF INQUIRY.

(a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall
submit to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate
and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of
Representatives a report on the implementation by the
Government of Bahrain of the recommendations contained in

[[Page S7290]]

the Report of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry.
(b) Content.--The report required under subsection (a)
shall include the following elements:
(1) A description of the specific steps taken by the
Government of Bahrain to implement each of the 26
recommendations contained in the Report of the Bahrain
Independent Commission of Inquiry.
(2) An assessment of whether each recommendation has been
fully complied with by the Government of Bahrain.
(3) An assessment of the impact of the findings of the
Report of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry on
progress toward democracy and respect for human rights in
Bahrain.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there will be another hour where people
will have an opportunity to come to the Senate floor and check on their
amendments. We hope our colleagues will take advantage of that
opportunity.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I hope our colleagues and staffs who are
observing our deliberations would think seriously about their
amendments and how they can be consolidated, whether they really need
to be considered. We are working through large numbers of amendments.
We will probably be revealing a finite list, and we hope we can satisfy
all Members' concerns.
I yield.
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. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business
to offer a tribute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Honoring Michael Schwartz

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to honor a member
of my staff who is not retiring but as a result of his ailment can no
longer come to work on the Hill. This gentleman's name is Michael
Schwartz. He has been my chief of staff for almost 15 years, beginning
while I was in the House and here in the Senate as well.
A lot of people on the Hill know Michael. What they know is that he
is one of the kindest, gentlest people anyone has ever met. He has been
a light focused on how we do things to honor other people.
Michael has been the kind of person who has always focused on others,
especially those in need. He is the kind of person who doesn't pass up
the homeless we all see around the Capitol but stops and tries to
satisfy their need. He offers them money and food, but he also offers
them friendship and his time. He offers them the love and dignity that
comes from being reminded that we are all children of the Creator.
Mike has also been an unapologetic defender of the family and of
those who cannot defend themselves, whether that be the disability
community, the unborn, the infirm, or the elderly. He has reminded me
and my staff and all of us that a society is truly measured in how it
treats and cares for those less fortunate.
Mike is also a voracious reader and gifted leader. In a city where
people stop learning when they gain power, Mike has shown that the
closer one gets to power, the more one needs to humble oneself and
learn new things. He has been mentoring staff and others for years on
the Hill in both reading groups and Bible studies, where he has shared
his wisdom, his faith, and his heart.
As many in the Senate know, Mike has ALS, Lou Gehrig's disease. For
weeks, he has been battling--actually months--to continue to fulfill
his responsibilities here when most of us would have said: It is too
difficult, I can't do it. He has overcome challenges that most of us
can scarcely imagine. He has done so with grace, humility, and an
unbelievable level of courage. Through all this, we have watched him
inspire everybody on my team with both his spirit and his tenacity.
In these difficult circumstances, Mike has been an extraordinary
servant and faithful leader. He is still the guy who cares more about
other people than himself. The kindness he has shown to everyone he has
encountered, whether to a homeless person on the street or a leading
Senator in the halls, he has reminded our team and me that we are all
equal regardless of position in the eyes of God.
Let me close with a passage from 2 Corinthians that reminds me so
very much of Mike.

It is written: ``I believed; therefore I have spoken.''
Since we have that same spirit of faith, we also believe and
therefore speak because we know that the one who raised the
Lord Jesus from the dead will also raise us with Jesus and
present us with you to himself. All this is for your benefit,
so that the grace that is reaching more and more people--

That wonderful word ``grace,'' too often a shortage in Washington,
that Mike so well displays--

may cause thanksgiving to overflow to the glory of God.
Therefore, we do not lose heart.

Mike, don't lose heart.

Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are
being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary
troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far
outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen,
but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but
what is unseen is eternal.

In a place preoccupied by titles and position and power, Mike has
shown everyone by his life and his deeds and his words that things that
are unseen are the things that matter. He has shown us what it means to
run the race and finish it strongly. Well done, good and faithful
servant.
My hope is that God will bless Mike and Roseanne, their children and
grandchildren, as he closes this chapter of his life on the Hill. He
will still be doing projects for us because his intellect, his insight,
and his knowledge are what we cannot bear to do without. So it has been
my privilege over the last 15 years to be modeled and mentored by my
chief of staff.
Mike, we love you. God bless you.
I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reed). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the bill we have before us, the Defense
authorization bill, we all recognize as a pretty special bill. Every
year for the past 51 years Congress has sent to the President a Defense
authorization bill which has been bipartisan in nature. Based upon the
progress we have seen in this Chamber for these past several days, it
appears this year will not be an exception.
I deeply appreciate the strong leadership of our colleagues, the
Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Arizona, in managing this
bill. They have put in countless hours and have worked to wade through
nearly 400 amendments that Members have filed with respect to this
bill. Not only the chairman and ranking member and their leadership,
but their staffs have worked incredibly hard. So I am pleased with
where we are.
I think the Chair probably knows I am one of those Members who
doesn't have a tendency to pile on or add multiple amendments to this
measure or to many measures, but on this bill I have broken with that
practice by filing 10 amendments. Six of these amendments relate to
frustrations I have experienced in responding to force structure
changes that were announced by the Air Force this last February. I
think we recognize that force structure changes can be a euphemism for
realignments, and realignments are usually reserved for a BRAC round.
But faced with the need to meet rigid fiscal year 2013 budget
objectives, the Air Force didn't wait for a BRAC round and, instead,
proposed a series of backdoor BRACs.
Most of these changes affected the Air National Guard and the Air
Force Reserves. One of these changes would substantially realign and
stop one step short of closing an Active-Duty air base, and I am
referring to Eielson Air Force Base near Fairbanks, AK.
Last February, the Air Force informed the Alaska congressional
delegation that it intended to make what

[[Page S7291]]

they call a ``warm'' base out of Eielson and reduce its current
population of about 3,000 airmen by half. The reduction would most
profoundly affect the Active-Duty population, which would be reduced by
about two-thirds. It would have led to the laying off of hundreds of
civilian and contractor personnel.
In the words of one prominent Fairbanks community leader:

It's the Air Force's intention to change Eielson from a
base that is mission capable to a base that is mission
incapable.

The Air Force somehow concluded it could pull off a move of this
magnitude without ever having to face the BRAC Commission or answer to
Congress. That takes a little bit of chutzpah. The Air Force knew this
was not going to sit well with the community. They promptly dispatched
then-Chief of Staff GEN Norton Schwartz to Alaska for a meeting with
community leaders. I appreciate his presence, and I was there when he
spoke to those leaders. But his message didn't leave much room for
optimism.
The Air Force official pretty much insisted this was a happening
thing; that resistance was going to be futile. I have to admit it came
as something as a surprise to me that the Air Force would select
Eielson as the only Active-Duty base slated for a backdoor BRAC. For
those who are not familiar with Eielson's strategic position, it sits
at the gateway to the Pacific Area of Responsibility, the most
strategically important Area of Responsibility, according to this
administration's defense planner. It also sits at the front door of the
Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex, which the Air Force regards as its
top unencroached training facility with tremendous future upside
potential. But for some reason this is the Active-Duty base that the
Air Force chose to essentially throw under the bus.
Unfortunately, this isn't the first time. Back in 2005, the Air Force
proposed to warm base Eielson. The BRAC Commission rejected that
proposal. They, instead, suggested the Air Force should place an F-16
Aggressor Squadron at Eielson to take advantage of its proximity to the
Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex. That Aggressor Squadron supports
cutting edge exercises, such as Red Flag Alaska and Northern Edge--
superior, phenomenal training exercises. Under the Air Force 2012
proposal, that squadron would now base at Joint Base Elmendorf
Richardson, and they would essentially commute to future exercises
launched out of Eielson Air Force Base.
So, Mr. President, I am left to conclude that perhaps there is
somebody in the Air Force who, for whatever reason, doesn't like
Eielson. I reach this conclusion with some hesitation and reluctance,
but when I see the Air Force prepared to sacrifice a base with one of
the longest runways in North America--it is a 14,531-foot runway, which
I think the Chair can appreciate--it is significant. There are no
encroachments, it has geographic superiority with respect to missions
in the Pacific and, really, across the globe. So it really does cause
me to wonder.
Since February, Senator Begich and I and our staffs have been in
touch with the Air Force on an almost daily basis trying to understand
the thinking of the Air Force. And it has been a moving target. It has
been tough to pin down.
First, they claimed it would save money in 2013, and then they
admitted that, well, a move would cost unbudgeted money in 2013. They
next claimed the move could be accomplished without any NEPA review.
Then they admitted that maybe an Environmental Impact Statement is
going to be required. They concluded the move could be executable in
2013 because there was sufficient housing that was proximate to JBER,
but then they came back and admitted their housing availability data
had come primarily off of Craig's list.
Later, there was a more disciplined study conducted that demonstrated
if the move were to be executed in 2013 there was not going to be
housing that was sufficient and proximate to JBER in order to relocate
the airmen, and there probably wouldn't be sufficient classroom seats
for the military families either.
A whole series of issues have cropped up because they weren't
thoroughly reviewed prior to the decision being made. So the Air Force
has now conceded that its plans are not executable in fiscal year 2013.
That is a wise decision, but it kind of begs the question: So what
about the future?
The Air Force may deny, but I think reasonable minds could conclude,
the Eielson plan is still moving full steam ahead. Let me offer the
following in evidence of that. The Senate Appropriations Committee has
directed the Air Force to spend no fiscal year 2013 money to implement
the force structure change until the Commission on the Future Structure
of the Air Force reports. I think that is a good thing, and I intend to
argue Eielson's case before that Commission. But I would note that S.
3254 requires the Commission, which is only going to be created once
the Defense authorization bill is signed into law, to report by March
31, 2013--essentially, a 3-month period. That is absolutely not
adequate time for the rigorous analysis that is required. I have
submitted an amendment this week, amendment 3135, which gives the
commission an additional year to complete its work.
Now, notwithstanding this direction to stop, the Air Force has
announced its plans to begin an Environmental Impact Statement on the
Eielson downsizing. They have announced this will commence January 2013
using fiscal year 2012 money. I do agree an EIS is a legally required
condition precedent to implementing the Air Force's structure changes
at Eielson, and that if the Air Force ultimately intends to downsize
Eielson and add airplanes and people to JBER, it will have to complete
the NEPA. Moreover, an EIS process will offer the Alaska community an
opportunity to weigh in and to vent their frustrations and concerns
with the Air Force, which is appropriate. But one has to wonder after
reading the Senate version of the Defense appropriations bill, what
part of ``stop'' is the Air Force not understanding.
I actually put this question to them in writing in September. I still
have not received a satisfactory answer. Several of the amendments I
have introduced would bring this concept of ``stop'' into the Defense
authorization bill, but there may be an alternative to offering them--a
solution that I think could be a win for all.
It strikes me that an EIS is not going to address two questions I
think are critical and I think should be answered before the EIS
process begins. The first is whether it makes any sense at all to throw
Eielson under the bus given its considerable strategic upside
potential. And the second is whether the Air Force will truly achieve
any cost savings by walking away from Eielson or simply transfer costs
someplace else.
In addition, an EIS will not answer the question whether it makes
sense for the Air Force to abandon a community that supports our airmen
like no other community in the country. This is a community that loves
to fly. You have people who have float planes and small aircraft and
bush planes. Everybody is a pilot there. They love to fly. This
community is more than willing to accommodate the Air Force's desire to
conduct summer exercises at the expense of precious general aviation
airspace, provided that the Air Force remains a good corporate citizen
in the community.
My amendment No. 3156 is a good-faith effort to find that common
ground with the Air Force. It requires the Air Force submit a report to
the defense communities evaluating the upside potential of Eielson Air
Force Base before it acts to tear down that base or relocate its
assets.
I wish to take a minute here to speak to some of that upside
potential, because I think it is considerable.
It is a well-known fact in interior Alaska that the Air Force
publicly announced scoping on an EIS for F-35 basing at Eielson back in
2008. So in 2008 they are talking about bringing in the F-35s. Then in
2009, they walked away from that announcement but suggested that
Eielson would be a desirable OCONUS basing location for the F-35. I
might suggest that this abrupt downsizing that is being considered now
of Eielson is inconsistent with that possible future use.
The 168th Air Refueling Wing of the Alaska National Guard fuels the
North Pacific on a daily basis, every single day of the year. There has
been some

[[Page S7292]]

discussion about adding an active association and increasing the tanker
presence proportionate to demand. But downsizing Eielson could
undermine the efficiency of that operation.
I mentioned earlier the unencumbered airspace that Eielson has. This
unencumbered airspace might make a perfect place for remote piloted
vehicle testing. This is a mission that Senator Begich has been
actively promoting for the past several years. So let's come to a
conclusion about whether this is a viable possibility.
As the Pacific AOR becomes more important, Eielson might once again
have the potential as a combat-coded fighter base given its proximity
to the world's hotspots. But let's not also forget that Eielson is the
air base closest to the Arctic and may certainly have new
responsibilities in that rapidly changing part of the globe. That is
one of the reasons why the Department of Homeland Security needs to be
part of this ongoing conversation.
So before the Air Force moves to potentially throw away all of this
and potentially demolish perfectly good facilities that might support
future missions, I think it needs to take a good hard look at the
upside of Eielson--not just merely recite the same old lines that,
quite honestly, failed back in 2005. That goes to the substance of the
Eielson decision.
I wish to spend a moment here to speak of the frustrations that I
have had about process as we have gone through this since February.
Congress has created a process to ensure that realignments that occur
outside of BRAC rounds are vetted by the congressional defense
committees. But like many laws, the Pentagon has been kind of looking
around for loopholes and the Air Force has been pretty adept at
identifying them--even if they might not actually be there. But there
are some worthy amendments I have submitted that would close the
loopholes. These are contained in 10 USC 993 and 10 USC 2687, and I
hope they will be considered.
One of the more substantial loopholes that is contained in 10 USC
2687 would seem to allow the Defense Department to characterize a
substantial reduction in civilian personnel as a reduction in force
rather than a realignment. That loophole, if it does exist, needs to be
closed.
Let me also note the difficulties we have had in obtaining
information from the Air Force over the past several months. Just
asking for specific information has been a struggle these past several
months. Ask the Air Force a question, and you tend to get a heavily
vetted and not terribly specific answer. Ask for documents explaining
the deliberative process of the Air Force, and maybe you get one
document months after you have asked for it. And, again, the document
doesn't explain very much.
Perhaps it is time for personal offices to be able to use the Freedom
of Information Act--the FOIA process--to get the documents they need in
a timely fashion, as journalists do. My amendment No. 3143 would
provide for an expedited review of FOIA requests pertaining to its
activities in a Member's home State, with no fees charged for
processing that request. I think it would perhaps level the playing
field between the committees that can subpoena documents and personal
offices that have a more limited option to obtain the documents they
need.
I think it is a positive contribution to oversight and I hope others
here in the Chamber will feel likewise. I will not be offering that
amendment up at this point in time in the hopes that the Air Force is
clear on my message, that I wish to find a way we can work more
cooperatively with this information exchange and that there can be
greater accommodation with the congressional request. I know that
General Welsh, as the new Chief of Staff, intends to improve the Air
Force relationships with the Congress. I have had a very positive
conversation with him about that. I want to give him an opportunity to
do so. I look forward to working with him on these issues and some of
the others I have had an opportunity to raise with him.
I wish to conclude my remarks by again thanking the chairman and
ranking member and all of the staffs for their yeomen's efforts on the
bill, and I look forward to supporting final passage.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and 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.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have been working very hard to come up
with what we call a finite list of amendments that would be the only
remaining first-degree amendments that would be in order to the bill.
We are working, obviously, on many other amendments to get them
cleared, but this would be the list of the maximum number of first-
degree amendments that would be in order.
Twenty minutes from now, I will be asking unanimous consent, as we
promised, that these amendments be the only remaining first-degree
amendments to the bill. We promised everybody they would have that
opportunity, because it is a long list, and we want to keep that
promise. But during that 20 minutes, we can reassure folks that if they
have a problem, things are the way we said they would be: Bingaman
2984; Brown of Ohio 3216; Kerry and Brown of Massachusetts 3034; Kohl
2887; Lieberman 3167; Lieberman 3276; Mikulski 3217; Nelson of Nebraska
3274, Pryor 2946; Reed of Rhode Island 3014; Reed of Rhode Island 3255;
Reid of Nevada 3244; Reid of Nevada 3047; Tester 3028--that is not the
sportsmen's amendment, by the way. There was an objection to it and
Senator Tester was willing to not have that on the list--Udall of New
Mexico 3049; Udall of New Mexico 3150; Akaka 3204; Begich 3194; Bennet
3226; Bingaman 3208; Boxer 3265; Brown of Ohio 3113; Carper 3241; Casey
2997; Conrad 3227; Coons 3289; Hagan 3056; Harkin 3147; Johnson of
South Dakota 3100; Kohl 2887; Lautenberg 3288; Levin 3164; Levin 3280;
Levin 3284; Nelson of Florida 3267; Reed of Rhode Island 3165; Reed of
Rhode Island 3255; Rockefeller 2996; Warner 3145; Warner 3188; Webb
2943; Webb 2957, Whitehouse 3181; Wyden 2959; Alexander 3258; Ayotte
3003; Ayotte 3004; Ayotte 3080; Barrasso 3081; Barrasso 3082; Barrasso
3198; Blunt 3728; Boozman 3221; Brown of Massachusetts 3160; Brown of
Massachusetts 3270; Burr 3219; Coats 2923; Collins 3042; Collins 3196;
Collins 3259; Collins 3282; Corker 3172; DeMint 3134; Graham 3203;
Grassley 2990; Grassley 3079; Hatch 3268; Hutchison 3078; Inhofe 2978;
Kyl 2927; Kyl 3033; Kyl 3239; Lee 3185; McCain 3054; McCain 3091;
McCain 3247; McCain 3262; McCain 3281; Moran 3285; Murkowski 3135;
Murkowski 3136; Murkowski 3156; Murkowski 3197; Paul 3118; Paul 3119;
Portman 3142; Risch, 3093; Risch 3094; Roberts 3032; Rubio 3175; Rubio
3176; Sessions 3007; Sessions 3008; Sessions 3013; Shelby 3070; Snowe
3218; Thune 3210; Thune 3277; Toomey 3060; Toomey 3065, with a
modification; Toomey 3066; Vitter 3087; Wicker 3000; and Wicker 3002.
Again, the UC will be offered at a quarter to 4. If anyone has
questions, please call our staff through the cloakroom. We have done a
huge amount of work to get to this point. I emphasize again that many
of our colleagues are understanding that we are working through
additional amendments that are not on this list, and we would hope they
would continue to cooperate with us in that regard.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, could I say we now have, believe it or
not, a pretty manageable list. We have been working for 3 days on
amendments, on compiling amendments, on disposing of amendments,
various managers' packages, and we will have an additional managers'
package or two today.
I ask our colleagues to cooperate in the next 20 minutes and have
their staffs--and themselves if they are in their offices--examine this
list, which is available, and make sure it is agreeable to them so we
can lock this down and then move forward to having voice votes,
managers' packages, and, where required, rollcall votes. We will not
deny any Senator this right, starting on Monday night. We look forward
to having agreement from everybody. I believe we can, beginning on
Monday, get this legislation done.
I would also like to say that I appreciate the patience of the
majority leader, who has a large calendar. We appreciate his patience
on this issue.
Finally, I would say again that I think we are showing and can show

[[Page S7293]]

Monday night that this body is capable of taking up a piece of
legislation without a cloture vote, without filling up the tree,
without all the other parliamentary maneuvers and objections, and come
forth with a piece of legislation that I think all of us can be proud
of but, more importantly, that is of significant importance to the men
and women who are serving in the military and our ability to protect
this Nation.
I thank the chairman again for his unstinting effort.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I extend our thanks to our colleagues and
their staffs who are working with us to keep this manageable. It is
manageable. I know it sounds overwhelming and it is daunting, but it is
manageable, providing understanding is there for this process and what
we are doing. I thank the staff who are working so hard. I thank the
Presiding Officer, who I know is changing his schedule this afternoon
so he can continue to preside.
At quarter-to--when I added up the minutes, at quarter-to, I will put
this unanimous consent request. I again emphasize that we are also
working on many amendments that are not on this list, and we are still
trying to clear them.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we are going to withhold the unanimous
consent agreement at this time. There have been a number of questions
raised about it. The time is being well spent actually. Those questions
need to be asked, but there are enough of them so that we will pick
that up on Monday. But we are making good progress. We are going to
have another 17 cleared amendments that will be coming up, we hope, in
the next 5 or 10 minutes.
We have already disposed of 77 amendments. I think we have done it in
a way which will make this body proud that we are legislating. If
people want to filibuster, threaten to filibuster or debate something,
we are going to say: Come over and debate--which we have. So we have
avoided these long periods of space. We have had no threat of a
filibuster that has required a threshold of 60. We have had majority
votes, and not the 60-threshold votes except for that one technical
budget amendment issue.
We are making great progress. I believe we will continue to make
progress. The leader, in a moment, I believe, is going to a file
cloture motion which is going to help with progress. But between now
and the time we vote on cloture, both this afternoon and on Monday, we
are going to continue to work on amendments to try to clear amendments.
I am sure we will voice-vote amendments in the cases that they have
been cleared and do not require a voice vote. The leader will, in a
moment, again, state what his plans are. But for the time being, I want
to thank our leader for the support he has given to the managers. It is
essential. We have had that support. We are grateful for it, and to all
of our colleagues and staffs working on this bill, which is always
complex and always has literally hundreds of amendments.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. The work done has been exemplary by the two managers. I
appreciate it very much. We have disposed of 75 amendments. We have
another batch we are going to approve very quickly. We have had
rollcall votes. There has been significant progress made. We are not
going to be able to lock in a finite list of amendments. That is always
hard to do. But I am confident we are going to be able to get this
done.
Senators McCain and Levin and their staffs will be available over the
weekend, and staff will be available more than the two Senators, who
have spent many hours on the Senate floor. We need to make sure people
who have problems with the proposal made by the two managers, that they
let them know because we need to lock this in as quickly as possible.
I am going to file cloture in just a minute. I encourage people to
work with the managers. We are going to go out. Senators Levin and
McCain are going to clear a few amendments, and then we are going to go
out for the weekend. This has been a very productive week.

Cloture Motion

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a cloture motion at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close the debate on S. 3254, a bill
to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for military
activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of
Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such
fiscal year, and for other purposes.
Harry Reid, Carl Levin, Kay R. Hagan, Barbara A.
Mikulski, Tom Udall, Jeff Merkley, Al Franken, Tom
Harkin, Jon Tester, Richard Blumenthal, Jeff Bingaman,
Patrick J. Leahy, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Amy Klobuchar,
Max Baucus, Michael F. Bennet, Mark Begich, Patty
Murray.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent under rule XXII that
the mandatory quorum be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Senator Levin will announce to the Senate at a later time--
but just to give an idea of what to expect--there will be a Maryland
judge's vote on Monday evening. Then that will be followed by a cloture
vote on the matter that I just sent the motion on to the desk.
We would hope that there will be the ability at that time--while the
30 hours are running--to clear a bunch of amendments.

____________________