Open Burn Pit Registry Act of 2011

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

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

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.

Mr. President, we would need to see the modification before it is accepted.

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. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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.

I think the order is that we now proceed to consideration of the Cardin amendment.

Amendment No. 3025

I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed for 10 seconds.

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. 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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds on this amendment.

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.

Would the leader yield?

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.

Would all Senators please note--I wish to thank the leader

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

Amendment No. 3073

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Would the Senator yield, because I want to make sure we are on the same track.

Is this the amendment that has been amended after discussions with Senator Kerry?

Then is it the Senator's intent to send a new amendment to the desk? Is that it?

So, in other words, it would be the same numbered amendment, as modified?

What is the intent of my friend from Arizona to do with that amendment now?

Then have it adopted?

Not to have it adopted at this time by voice vote?

At some point the Senator would be happy to take a voice vote on it?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3009, as modified, and ask for its consideration.

I believe it is at the desk.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3009 and ask for its consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Regular order here.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Maryland be given an additional 3 minutes, if he so desires.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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.

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.

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 Vice President of the United States also was in attendance.

As my friend from Michigan knows, the Vice President of the United States is not notorious for his brevity.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.