Floor Statements

I move to reconsider the vote.

Objection.

Madam President, I wonder if the good Senator from Texas would consent to my being allowed to speak for 5 minutes prior to the motion to table, which I understand is going to be forthcoming?

I very much appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from Texas.

Let me try in 5 minutes to encapsulate what is in the bill and why we are where we are.

The bill includes numerous provisions, as the Presiding Officer knows, to sustain the compensation and quality of life of our service men and women and their families--the quality of life they deserve as they face the hardships that are imposed by continuing military operations around the world.

In just a few of these provisions are 30 types of bonuses and special pay, $25 million for supplemental impact aid to local education agencies with military dependent children, money to assist the Department of Defense in assisting veterans in their transition to civilian life, provisions for the Special Operations Command at $9 billion, $1 billion for counter-IED efforts, a provision to require the Department of Defense to streamline the Department of Defense management headquarters at all levels by changing or reducing the size of staffs and eliminating tiers of management, cutting functions that provide little or no added value, and a new land withdrawal provision that the Marine Corps has been working so hard on at 29 Palms, CA. This is the No. 1 legislative priority of the Marine Corps. The Commandant explained to us that the Marine Corps has spent 6 years analyzing and preparing for this expansion so the Corps can meet its minimum training criteria.

As General Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told us a few weeks ago, the authorities in this Defense bill ``are critical to the Nation's defense and are urgently needed to ensure we keep faith with the men and women, military and civilians, selflessly serving in our armed forces.''

Relative to the question of amendments which has been raised, we tried when this bill came to the floor to get consent to have amendments relate to the Defense authorization bill and we were unable to get that consent. We tried to get consent to adopt almost 40 cleared amendments as a managers' package. We could not get consent to do that. We asked to lock in 13 additional amendments for votes on both sides of the aisle, but equally divided, without prejudice as to further amendments that could be brought up but, again, there was objection.

Now, at this point, here is where we are. With the House of Representatives having left for the year, the only way we are going to get a defense bill enacted is by passing the bill before us as it stands. If it is amended, the bill would have to go back to the House of Representatives and the result would be we would get nothing enacted, killing both amendments as well as the bill itself. It would put the Defense authorization bill in limbo.

We have never done that. We have faced situations similar to this 2 years of the prior 5. We have always managed to pass a National Defense Authorization Act for 51 straight years. We followed the process in 2 of those last 5 years, which is not dissimilar to this process which we are following this year.

Does that make this the best way to proceed? No. It is not the best way to proceed. But that is not the choice we face. Our troops and their families and our Nation's security deserve a defense bill. The bill before us is right for our troops, for their families, for our Nation's security, and it was produced in a bipartisan manner. Senator Inhofe, my ranking member, is here, and I think he will attest to the fact that we adopted dozens of amendments in our committee work on a bipartisan basis.

This bill deserves a strong bipartisan vote of the Senate today, but to do that the motion to table, which I understand is about to be made, needs to be defeated.

I yield the floor.

I will be happy to yield.

There was debate and amendment on this bill the week before Thanksgiving. So it would not be----

Well, the sexual assault amendments which were pending, as my good friend from Arizona knows, were debated. There are about 20- plus sexual assault amendments that are in the bill so it makes major advances in that area.

In terms of the two amendments that I think the Senator is referring to--the amendments of Senator McCaskill and Senator Gillibrand--there was about a day-long debate on those, and there was an effort to vote on them. I think everybody wanted to vote on those two amendments, but there was objection to it.

In terms of what I believe the Senator is driving at, there was a time--I think it was in 2011 or 2012--when a Defense authorization bill was, in fact, adopted by unanimous consent. I think there was no debate on the bill that was finally adopted.

Having said that, I happen to agree this is not the ideal way to adopt a defense bill. I have said that over and over. And I have pointed out the way in which we tried to at least get some amendments adopted, including about 30 that had been agreed to and had been cleared, but we couldn't even get those added.

Now, with Senator Inhofe's help, we were able to get much of the material in those amendments that were worked out between us and the House leaders so that they are in this bill; not all of the amendments that had been cleared but many of them. But I happen to agree with my friends, this is not the ideal way to proceed. But we are now where we are, and if we simply reopen this bill and do not adopt it the way it

is, it then has to go back to the House of Representatives, and then there would not be a defense bill, with all of the then-problems that would be created for our troops and their families. So this is the best we can do, but it is not ideal.

Mr. President, 2013 marks a significant milestone for a dynamic company based in Detroit, MI. It is the 75th anniversary of the founding of Detroit Diesel. Detroit enjoys a rich automotive heritage and has been a hub of innovation and manufacturing for generations. Many companies throughout the State have contributed to this impressive legacy. One of those companies is Detroit Diesel, and I am proud to recognize this innovative company here today.

Founded in 1938, Detroit Diesel has emerged as a leader in the heavy- truck engine industry and an important contributor to Michigan's economy. What began as a company focused on producing engines for the Allied Forces in World War II has expanded through the years to include an array of products used in a number of sectors. Detroit Diesel has a well-earned reputation for quality, has championed a number of technological breakthroughs in the manufacturing industry and is a committed community partner. These accomplishments are a tribute to the many hard-working people that make their success possible year after year. And I have witnessed firsthand some of the cutting edge technologies Detroit Diesel has pioneered.

Demand Performance is Detroit Diesel's hallmark, and they have achieved this in their product development and in the community. With a workforce of more than 2,000 in the city of Detroit, Detroit Diesel is a wonderful example of what is possible through cooperation and economic opportunities. This is evident in the announcement last fall of a $120 million capital investment by Detroit Diesel. This investment brings greater hope and new possibilities for the company and the city. It is also evident in their commitment to the community through their many charitable activities focused on helping families, protecting and improving the environment, and assisting various educational endeavors.

During its 75 years of existence, Detroit Diesel has made a significant contribution to Michigan's economy. As a lifelong Detroit resident, I am keenly aware of how business development helps to create and sustain jobs, to stabilize neighborhoods and to build the middle class. I commend Detroit Diesel for their entrepreneurial spirit and for

their high quality products. I wish them the best as they continue to forge ahead, create jobs and innovate.

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

Mr. President, the bill we are about to vote on is a good bill. It is the product of an extensive bipartisan, bicameral agreement between the Armed Services Committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives. We have passed a defense bill every year for the last 51 years. This bill deserves to be the 52nd because, like our previous bills, it does the right thing for our troops, their families, and our Nation's security. It passed the House with a vote of 350 to 69, and it deserves an equally strong bipartisan vote in the Senate tonight.

Yesterday I praised the members of our committee, and I also noted the amazing work of our staff, and I am not going to repeat that.

This bill is not a Christmas gift to our troops and their families. Authorizing funding for our troops, supporting our troops and their families is what we owe them. It is the least we can do, for they are the gift--they are the gift to this country, to this Nation, and to all of its people.

I would like to describe some of the many important provisions in this bill.

The bill includes numerous provisions to sustain the compensation and quality of life that our service men and women and their families deserve as they face the hardships imposed by continuing military operations around the world. For example, our bill reauthorizes over 30 types of bonuses and special pays aimed at encouraging enlistment, re- enlistment, and continued service by Active Duty and Reserve component military personnel.

It authorizes $25 million in supplemental impact aid to local educational agencies with military dependent children and $5 million in impact aid for

schools with military dependent children with severe disabilities.

It enhances DOD programs to assist veterans in their transition to civilian life and increase their opportunities for early employment by improving access to credentialing programs for civilian occupational specialties.

It requires the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to ensure that the electronic health records systems of the two Departments are interoperable and provide a single integrated display of data.

The bill also includes funding needed to provide our troops the equipment and support that they need for ongoing combat, counterinsurgency, and stability operations around the world. For example, our bill authorizes $9.9 billion for U.S. Special Operations Command, including both base budget funding and OCO funding.

It authorizes nearly $1 billion for counter-IED efforts, beginning to ramp down expenditures in this area, while ensuring that we make investments needed to protect our forces from roadside bombs.

It provides $6.2 billion in funding to train and equip the Afghan National Army and Afghan Police, as requested by the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, so that we can complete the transition of security responsibility, as planned, by the end of 2014.

It authorizes the Secretary of Defense--upon a determination from the President that it is in the national security interests of the United States--to use up to $150 million of amounts authorized for the Coalition Support Fund account in fiscal years 2013 and 2014 to support the border security operations of the Jordanian Armed Forces.

It extends global train and equip--section ``1206''--authority through 2017 to help build the capacity of foreign force partners to conduct counterterrorism and stability operations.

The bill includes a compromise on Guantanamo, which eases the transfer of Gitmo detainees overseas, while retaining prohibitions on transfers to the United States. It includes 36 provisions to strengthen DOD's response to the problem of sexual assault in our military.

The bill includes hundreds of other important provisions to ensure that the Department can carry out its essential national defense missions. For example, Section 121 of the bill increases the cost cap for the Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier program as requested by the Department of Defense and tightens cost controls on the program. In the absence of this provision, DOD would have to stop work on the aircraft carrier, resulting in the layoff of thousands of workers and an additional cost of up to $1 billion dollars on the Ford and subsequent ships.

Section 352 of the bill requires DOD to eliminate the development and fielding of service-specific combat and camouflage utility uniforms and instead move to combat and camouflage uniforms that are used by all members of the Armed Forces. This provision addresses a finding by GAO that identified DOD's fragmented approach to developing and acquiring combat uniforms as a significant source of duplication and waste in the Department.

Section 904 of the bill requires the Secretary of Defense to streamline DOD management headquarters at all levels by changing or reducing the size of staffs, eliminating tiers of management, cutting functions that provide little or no added value, and consolidating overlapping and duplicative programs and offices. We expect this provision to save $40 billion or more over the next 10 years.

Section 1024 of the bill allows the Secretary of the Navy to settle 20-year old litigation arising from the default termination of the contract for the production of the A-12 aircraft. Under the proposed settlement authorized by this provision the Navy will receive ships and aircraft worth almost $400 million at no cost to the government.

Section 1098 of the bill authorizes the Department of Defense to transfer unneeded aircraft to the Forest Service, providing the Forest Service with much-needed replacements for aging wildfire suppression aircraft. This provision was based on a Senate floor amendment which we were unable to adopt even though it had been cleared on both sides.

Section 1302 of the bill authorizes the use of funds available under the Cooperative Threat Reduction--CTR--program to eliminate Syrian chemical weapons. This provision will give DOD the funding flexibility that it says it needs to carry out the destruction of these dangerous weapons, as provided by our agreements with the Russians and others.

Section 2807 of the bill requires that all future military construction projects funded using in-kind payments from partner nations under an international agreement be submitted for congressional authorization. That may not sound like a big deal, but this provision is the result of a yearlong investigation by the committee staff, in which we learned that DOD was using in-kind payments from our allies to fund questionable military construction projects without appropriate oversight.

Section 2941 through 2946 of the bill authorize a new land withdrawal to expand the Marine Corps training range at 29 Palms in California. This provision was the No. 1 legislative priority of the Marine Corps this year. As the Commandant of the Marine Corps explained in an August 29 letter to the committee, the Marine Corps has spent more than 6 years analyzing and preparing for this expansion to ensure that the Corps can meet its minimum training criteria for live fire and maneuver training. The Commandant's letter explains:

Although Twentynine Palms has served the Marine Corps well

since the 1940s, it is currently inadequate to properly train

our Marine Palms is my top legislative priority. Successful

MEB training requires coordinated simultaneous air and ground

live fire in concert with ground maneuvers over a 48-72 hour

period involving 15,000 Marines. Although a MEB is our

principal fighting force, we currently lack sufficient

training space to train a MEB-sized unit. The Marine Corps

proposes to correct this training and readiness shortfall by

expanding Twentynine Palms through the withdrawal and

acquisition of 168,000 acres in the Johnson Valley area.

These are just a few examples drawn from hundreds of provisions in this bill. As Gen Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told us last week, the authorities included in this bill ``are critical to the Nation's defense and urgently needed to ensure we all keep faith with the men and women, military and civilian, selflessly serving in our Armed Forces.''

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, in comparison to recent battles this Congress has fought over the budget, the legislation we consider today represents progress. Instead of government by crisis and hostage- taking, we have before us an agreement negotiated by the Senator Murray, a Democrat, and Congressman Ryan, a Republican, a negotiation in which neither side got all that it wanted, but both sides found acceptable middle ground. That is not a common event around here these days. Significantly, by reaching agreement, they have offered us a way to avoid a potential government shutdown in 2014. And they have provided a way to offer some relief from the damaging impact of sequestration.

So I will support this agreement. But I will not do so without reservation. Despite what it offers, this budget agreement falls short of what I believe we need to accomplish in three significant ways.

First, while the agreement provides some modest relief, it leaves more than half of the irrational meat-ax cuts of sequestration in place over 2 years. As a result, important programs to protect and promote national security, public safety, health, transportation, education, and the environment will remain under-funded. A balanced package that included measures I have recommended to close loopholes that allow profitable corporations to avoid taxes by sending their revenue and assets to offshore tax havens would, if passed, do far more to address these problems.

Second, this agreement does not include an extension of emergency unemployment benefits for 1.3 million people. Those benefits end in less than 2 weeks. Failure to extend these benefits would mean more than 43,000 workers in my state of Michigan would lose unemployment benefits at year's end. In the first 6 months of 2014, more than 86,000 additional Michigan workers would also lose benefits if we fail to act. This is both cruel and economically self-defeating. At a time when job creation remains slower than any of us want, and when nationwide there are roughly three job seekers for every available job opening, removing the safety net that keeps families from falling into despair is unjust. And the reduced economic activity that will result will cost thousands of jobs, making our economic recovery even slower. The Republican refusal to include extended unemployment benefits in this legislation is deeply disappointing. Majority Leader Reid has expressed determination to take up an unemployment benefit extension bill in January. It is essential that we do so.

Third, the agreement includes a provision that would reduce cost-of- living adjustments for working-age military retirees. This is a troubling provision because it singles out a group of veterans, and therefore I have decided the Senate Armed Services Committee will review the retirement benefit changes next year, before they take effect in 2015. This proposal is yet more evidence of the fact that the only fair solution to the sequestration problem is a balanced, comprehensive deficit-reduction agreement. The major impediment to such an agreement has been the inability of some in Congress to accept the necessity of real additional revenue, such as closing tax loopholes used by highly profitable corporations to avoid paying taxes by transferring assets and revenue to subsidiaries in offshore tax havens.

These shortcomings in the budget legislation before us are significant, but nonetheless this legislation does offer important benefits. The sequestration relief, though smaller than many of us would like, is significant. Over the course of the last year, the Armed Services Committee has repeatedly heard from our senior military and civilian defense leaders that the rigidity and extent of the sequestration puts the security of our Nation and the lives of our troops at risk. Sequestration has also shut Head Start classrooms, labs researching cures to life-threatening diseases, and clinics providing health care to the needy and elderly, among many unwise effects.

Again, this legislation offers the only available way out of the cycle of crisis that brought us a damaging government shutdown in November. That shutdown was extraordinarily disturbing to every American who expects Government to operate without the constant threat of shutting down.

So on balance I support this legislation because of the modest positive changes it makes from the status quo, and in the hope that this is the first step toward a more comprehensive and more balanced deficit-reduction agreement to replace the rest of sequestration. This agreement likely represents as much progress as we realistically can make in the absence of a balanced, comprehensive budget agreement. Again, the major stumbling block that prevents us from reaching such an agreement is the reluctance of so many Republicans to consider additional revenue, particularly the substantial revenue available to us through closing unjustified tax loopholes. It is essential that we spend the coming weeks and months working toward a better, more balanced, fairer, more comprehensive solution.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to join Senator Inhofe, the ranking Republican on our committee, in bringing to the floor the agreement between the Armed Services Committees of the Senate and the House on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.

The House passed this bill last week with a vote of 350 to 69, and if we pass it in the Senate, which I am optimistic now that we will, it will mark the 53rd year in a row we have enacted this bill that is so essential to the defense of our Nation and to our men and women in uniform and their families.

I wish to thank all of the members of the Armed Services Committee and our staffs. I especially want to thank our subcommittee chairs and ranking members for the hard work they have done to get us to the finish line on this bill.

Of course, I thank Senator Inhofe for the close partnership we have had in leading this committee. We have both had the benefit of a strong relationship

with the chairman and ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, Buck McKeon and Adam Smith, in our endeavor.

I share the disappointment of Senators with our inability to vote on more amendments when our committee bill was brought to the Senate floor a few weeks ago. Senator Inhofe and I spent a week on the Senate floor before Thanksgiving trying to bring up more amendments and to have them debated and voted on.

We tried to reach agreement to limit consideration to defense-related amendments, but we were unable to do that. We tried to consent to vote on two sexual assault amendments, the Gillibrand amendment and the McCaskill amendment, which had been fully debated, but we could not get consent to do that. We tried to get consent to adopt a package of 39 amendments that had been cleared on both sides, but we were unable to do even that.

It then became clear, given the Senate schedule, that our only hope of enacting a defense bill this year was to negotiate a new bill with the House Armed Services Committee on the basis of two bills: one that was reported out of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and, two, the bill that was passed by the House of Representatives, and then we decided we would seek enactment of a new bill in both Houses.

That new bill passed the House without amendment. If we fail to pass the same bill, there will be no National Defense Authorization Act this year, with the result being we would deny the Department of Defense vital authorities, we would undermine congressional oversight of the military, and we would fail in our duty to provide our men and women in uniform the support they need and deserve.

The bill before us is not a Democratic bill and it is not a Republican bill. It is a bipartisan, bicameral defense bill. It is a good bill and one that deserved the strong support it received in the House of Representatives and that I hope will receive a strong vote in the Senate tomorrow.

The bill includes hundreds of important provisions to ensure that the Department can carry out its essential national defense missions.

Here are just a few examples: Our bill extends the Department of Defense authority to pay out combat pay and hardship duty pay.

The bill extends supplemental impact aid to help local school districts educate military children.

The bill extends existing military land withdrawals at China Lake, Chocolate Mountain, and Limestone Hills that would otherwise expire, leaving the military without critical testing and training capabilities.

The bill includes a new land withdrawal, which is critical to the Marines, to expand its training area at 29 Palms.

Our bill provides needed funding for the destruction of the Syrian chemical weapons stockpile and for efforts of the Jordanian Armed Forces to secure that country's border with Syria.

Our bill enables the Department of Defense to save more than $1 billion by authorizing a number of multiyear contracts.

Our bill includes more than 30 provisions, as our Presiding Officer well knows, to address the problem of sexual assault in the military. For example, we provide every military sexual assault survivor a special victim's counsel--a lawyer who works not for commanders, not for prosecutors or defense attorneys or a court but for the victim.

We include strong new protections for survivors, for those people who have been victims, making it a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice to retaliate against a servicemember who reports a sexual assault and requiring that the Department of Defense inspector general review and investigate any allegation of such retaliation.

Our bill requires that commanders who become aware of a reported sexual assault immediately forward that information to criminal investigators.

Our bill ends the ability of commanders to modify findings and convictions for sexual assaults and other serious crimes.

Our bill provides that any decision by a commander not to prosecute a sexual assault complaint undergoes an automatic review by a higher command authority, which in nearly all cases would mean a general or a flag officer.

Our bill includes the Boxer amendment to make the article 32 process more like a grand jury proceeding in which the purpose is to determine probable cause rather than the current process which is used as a discovery tool by the defense.

While this change is not limited to sexual assault cases, it will mean the victim of a sexual assault will not have to appear in person and be subjected to cross-examination by the defense.

As Senators are aware, we were unable to vote on either the Gillibrand amendment or the McCaskill amendment on the floor because of procedural objections. I hope the Senate will be able to consider and vote on both of these important initiatives early next year.

Again, relative to sexual assault, our bill does contain groundbreaking reforms that will provide much needed assistance to victims of sexual assault while also helping establish a climate in the military in which there is no tolerance for sexual assault or for retaliation against those who report it.

With regard to Guantanamo, the bill we reported out of the Armed Services Committee included both language making it possible to bring detainees to the United States for trial and a provision making it easier to transfer detainees back to their home countries. The full Senate voted to retain these provisions by a 55-to-43 vote when the committee-reported bill was on the floor.

The compromise we reached includes the House prohibition on bringing Gitmo detainees to the United States but follows the Senate language generally, which provides our military greater flexibility to transfer Gitmo detainees to third countries. As a result, our military will be able to make decisions about how long to keep detainees and under what circumstances to transfer them to third countries on the basis of a real-world evaluation of risks rather than the current law, which provides an arbitrary and extreme checklist of certification requirements.

We recently received letters from our senior military leaders urging us to enact the Defense authorization bill before we leave this year.

For example, GEN Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, wrote that the authorities included in this bill ``are critical to the Nation's defense and urgently needed to ensure we all keep faith with the men and women, military and civilian, selflessly serving in our Armed Forces.''

GEN Ray Odierno, the Army Chief of Staff, told us:

From authorities that help us prevent and respond to sexual

assault, restore readiness, allow for continuous work in our

industrial base, and start important military construction

projects, this NDAA is critical to your Soldiers, their

Families, and the numerous local communities that support our

installations.

ADM Jonathan Greenert, Chief of Naval Operations, stated that pushing the bill into the next year ``would mean critical authorities expire, which would exacerbate my readiness challenge and jeopardize our commitment to our service men and women.''

Gen. James Amos, Commandant of the Marine Corps, wrote:

Without an NDAA, landmark legislation transforming the

Uniform Code of Military Justice and improving the support

provided to victims of sexual assault will be lost.

He continued:

I am also concerned about the adverse impact on logistical

support for Coalition forces in Afghanistan, our ability to

retrograde military equipment along the Northern Distribution

Network, and the impact on Coalition Support Funds that

support ground transportation of supplies and retrograde of

equipment through Pakistan.

Gen. Mark Welsh, the Air Force Chief of Staff wrote:

The FY 14 NDAA contains critical authorities that enable us

to protect the American people while keeping our promise to

our active duty, Guard, Reserve, and civilian airmen. If this

important legislation is not enacted, I worry about

significant impacts to Air Force operations that could

jeopardize the missions we are tasked to perform. . . .

Simply put, we cannot operate effectively without your help

and without the direction that the NDAA provides.

Gen. Frank Grass, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, told us:

Failure to enact an NDAA would break faith with our Army

and Air Guardsmen by not re-authorizing special pay and

bonuses.

Also, authorities contained in the NDAA are crucial to

maintaining the training, equipment, and opportunities

necessary for the National Guard to remain an operational

force ready to respond to domestic and overseas

contingencies.

I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in full in the Record.

.Chairman of

the Joint Chiefs of Staff,

Washington, DC, December 9, 2013.

Hon. Harry Reid,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Majority Leader: As we enter the final weeks of

December, I write to urge you to complete the National

Defense Authorization Act this year. The authorities

contained therein are critical to the Nation's defense and

urgently needed to ensure we all keep faith with the men and

women, military and civilian, selflessly serving in our Armed

Forces. Allowing the Bill to slip to January adds yet more

uncertainty to the force and further complicates the duty of

our commanders who face shifting global threats. I also fear

that delay may put the entire Bill at risk, protracting this

uncertainty and impacting our global influence. For your

reference, enclosed is a list summarizing expiring

authorities.

I deeply appreciate congressional efforts to achieve a

budget deal and subsequent appropriations. Your efforts to

provide the Joint Chiefs the Time, Certainty, and Flexibility

in both our budget and authorities will help ensure we keep

our Nation safe from coercion.

I appreciate your continued concern for and support of our

men and women in uniform.

Sincerely,

Martin E. Dempsey,

General, U.S. Army.

Enclosure.

Finally, we have managed to pass a national defense authorization bill for 52 straight years, including a number of recent years when we were unable to pass a bill in the Senate, and therefore unable to go to a traditional conference. That is not best way to proceed. I think we all acknowledge that.

Our troops, their families, and our Nation's security, deserve a defense bill, and what we are offering to the Senate is the only practical way to get a bill passed and enacted.

Again, before I yield the floor, I wish to thank Senator Inhofe and his staff who have joined so closely with myself and all of the members of the Armed Services Committee and our staff to make it possible to get, as I said before, this close to the finish line.

I am confident we are going to cross that finish line because of the hard work of our members. I want to especially point out our subcommittee chairs and the ranking members as well as all of the members of the Armed Services Committee, including Senator Blumenthal, who at this moment is presiding over the Senate and has personally played such an important role in getting us to where we are.

With that, and again with my thanks to Senator Inhofe, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I surely join Senator Inhofe in the plea that his time and much of the time between now and the 30-hour end point be yielded back. Somehow or other, I hope our leaders can manage that for not just Senator Inhofe's 54th wedding anniversary--I thought I was a heroic figure; my wife is more heroic than I--because we have been married 52 years.

She is the hero. But in any event, I surely join in that request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a full list of our minority and majority staff who have given so much of themselves and their families be printed in the Record, including Peter Levine, John Bonsell, and then all of the other staff members, both the majority and minority staff.

Mr. President, I again thank all of the members of our committee and staff who worked--I don't know how to describe the effort that every year is put into our authorization bill. It is a round number--52, maybe now 53 years. It is a big number. It doesn't say what each year--each month of every year--our staffs put into the annual authorization bill. It is an extraordinary effort that they make. Senator Inhofe and our colleagues and I watch them really with amazement because of what they give up to accomplish this. We are not quite there yet. We have to have a final passage vote. I hope it comes a lot earlier than late tomorrow.

energy savings performance contracting

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.R. 1402, which was received from the House and is at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

The bill (H.R. 1402) was ordered to a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each and, further, that the time count postcloture.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, our men and women in uniform sacrifice much to keep our Nation strong and free. They are well-trained, extraordinarily capable and are some of our country's best and brightest. One of them is a man I want to help recognize today as he retires from the U.S. Army.

COL Richard D. Root, from Hartford, MI, has served our country in uniform for a quarter of a century and I am delighted to congratulate him on a long and distinguished military career. In 2007, Colonel Root came to the Senate as the Deputy for the Army's Senate liaison office. He was then selected as the Director of legislative affairs for GEN John Allen, the commander, International Security Assistance Force, ISAF, during the critical period in Afghanistan from 2011 to 2013. In this capacity, Colonel Root escorted over 70 congressional delegations visiting Afghanistan and Pakistan. During these congressional delegations, Colonel Root masterfully balanced both the interests of Senators with the priorities of his commander to ensure that Members of Congress received a clear and accurate picture of the strategic military and political situation in Afghanistan.

Prior to his service with congressional liaison, Colonel Root performed with great distinction in all of his assignments throughout his extraordinary career, including command of the 3rd Battalion, 320th Field Artillery Regiment ``Red Knights'' during Operation Iraqi Freedom from 2005 to 2006. Additionally, he served as an executive officer for the 4th Infantry Division Artillery and a variety of other tactical and operational assignments from platoon to brigade while deployed for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and for Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield in 1991.

In his final assignment as the executive officer to the chief of army legislative liaison, Colonel Root worked tirelessly to expand relationships between the Army and the 113th Congress.

Our military personnel do not shoulder the stress and sacrifice of military service alone, and Colonel Root is no exception. His wife, Diann, and his daughter, Lexi, have stood proudly by his side, sacrificing time with their husband and father while he fulfilled his military commitments. To them also, we offer a truly heartfelt thanks.

As he retires, Colonel Root leaves behind an impressive record of military service and his counsel, professionalism and expertise will surely be missed by the Army and Congress alike. We offer him our sincere thanks for his service to our Nation and the example he has set for those under his command and colleagues with whom he served. I know my colleagues join me in wishing Colonel Root and his family all the best as they begin this next exciting chapter in their lives.

Mr. President, a century ago on December 24, 1913, hundreds of miners and their families had gathered for a Christmas Eve celebration in the small Upper Peninsula town of Calumet, MI. Their community was under tremendous stress; the miners of what is known to this day as ``Copper Country'' had been on strike for 5 months. But they had come for a brief holiday respite from the trials and struggles of those difficult days.

What began as a joyful day ended in tears and wails and inconsolable grief. While no one will know for certain what sparked the families' rush to the doors at the bottom of the stairs leading from the hall, most believe that someone yelled ``Fire!'' even though there was none. What resulted in the rush to the exit is almost unimaginable: 59 children and 14 adults were dead, having been trampled or suffocated.

This dreadful disaster has forever brought back painful memories on December 24, Christmas Eve, for the community of Calumet, MI. On the centennial anniversary of this event, the anguish is still real. The sadness is only overshadowed by the senselessness of the event.

The families celebrating in the Italian Hall were hard-working immigrants, struggling through the labor strike to fight for better wages, hours and working conditions. They came to Copper country for the promise of work, even though mining was difficult and dangerous. This area was home to the largest known deposits of pure elemental copper in the world, drawing hundreds of thousands of people from around the world. It was here that the lives of immigrants shaped our nation, with their successes and their struggles.

So many reminders of the copper mining heyday remain in the quaint town. From the historic architecture to the Yooper accents; from the variety of ethnic foods to the hard living work ethic that exists today, the Copper Country communities are reminded every day of their heritage. The historic buildings, landscapes and museum collections of the area are protected and preserved by the Keweenaw National Historical Park, working collaboratively with local and State governments, historic organizations and private property owners. The park brings to life the multi-faceted story of

copper mining history including its social, ethnic, commercial and technological dimensions. However, no artifact can compete with the feeling that Christmas Eve presents to the Village of Calumet every year when it is reminded of the Italian Hall tragedy.

On this centennial, we remember those who perished, and celebrate their lives and the heritage they have left for us.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Whitney Reitz, a State Department fellow in the office of Senator Landrieu, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 113th Congress.

The following executive reports of nominations were submitted:

Mr. President, before we left for the Thanksgiving break, Senator Inhofe and I said we would come to the Senate floor today to update Members on the status of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.

Before the break we spent a week on the Senate floor trying to bring more amendments up and to have them debated and voted on, but we were unable to do so. We tried to reach agreement to limit consideration to defense-related amendments, but we were unable to do that. We tried to get consent to vote on two sexual assault amendments--the Gillibrand amendment and the McCaskill amendment--that had been fully debated, but we could not get that consent. We tried to get consent to lock in additional amendments for votes and to move a package of cleared amendments, but we were unable to do so.

At this point, the House of Representatives will be adjourning for the year at the end of this week, and there is simply no way we can debate and vote on those amendments to the pending bill, get cloture, pass the bill, go to conference with the House, get a conference report written, and have it adopted by the House of Representatives all before the House goes out of session this Friday. There simply is no way all of those events can take place to get a defense bill passed.

So Senator Inhofe and I believe it is our responsibility to the Armed Services Committee, to the Senate, to our men and women in uniform, and to the country to do everything we can to enact a defense authorization bill. For this reason, we are taking the same approach we took when we were unable to finish the bill and go to conference with the House in 2008 and 2010. What we did is we sat down with our counterparts on the House side--in this case, chairman Buck McKeon and ranking member Adam Smith of the House Armed Services Committee--and we set our staffs to work to come up with a bill that would have a chance of getting passed by both Houses.

The four of us have reached agreement on a bill that we hope will be passed by the House before it recesses this Friday and, if it does, then be considered by the Senate next week.

We worked hard to blend the bill that was overwhelmingly voted out of the Senate Armed Services Committee with the bill that was overwhelmingly approved by the House of Representatives. We have worked, as we always do, on the SAS Committee on a bipartisan basis.

We took into consideration as many proposed Senate amendments as we could. We focused on amendments that had been cleared on the Senate side when the bill was being debated in the Senate. We approached these amendments and others in much the same manner as we did provisions that were in the bill, working to come up with language, wherever possible, that could be accepted on the Democratic and Republican sides in both the Senate and the House.

The bill we have come up with is not a Democratic bill or a Republican bill. It is a bipartisan defense bill, one that serves the interests of our men and women in uniform and preserves the important principle of congressional oversight over the Pentagon. Here are some examples of what will be in the bill that will be considered by the House later this week and then hopefully by the Senate next week.

The bill will extend the authority of the Department of Defense to pay combat pay and hardship duty pay for our troops. The bill, relative to Guantanamo, includes that part of the Senate language easing restrictions on overseas transfers of Gitmo detainees, but it retains the House prohibitions on transferring detainees to the United States.

Although we were unable to consider the Gillibrand and McCaskill amendments on the Senate floor or in the bill itself that will be forthcoming, the bill includes more than 20 other provisions to address the problem of sexual assault in the military that were in the Senate bill that came to the floor out of the committee and that were in the House of Representatives bill as well.

These provisions include the following: They provide a special victims' counsel for survivors of sexual assault, make retaliation for reporting a sexual assault a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The provisions require commanders to immediately refer all allegations of sexual assault to professional criminal investigators. They would end the commanders' ability to modify findings and convictions for sexual assaults, and would require higher level review of any decision not to prosecute allegations of sexual assault.

The bill will do the following that will be hopefully coming here next week: Make the Article 32 process more like a grand jury proceeding. Under the UCMJ, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, currently the proceeding that is taken under Article 32 is more like a discovery proceeding rather than a grand jury proceeding, and it has created all kinds of problems, including for victims of sexual assault who would have to appear and be subject to cross-examination by the defense.

This bill will extend supplemental impact aid to help local school districts educate military children. The bill will extend existing military land withdrawals in a number of places that would otherwise expire, leaving the military without critical testing and training capabilities. The bill includes a new land withdrawal to enable the Marine Corps to expand its training area at 29 Palms.

The bill provides needed funding authority for the destruction of the Syrian chemical weapons stockpile and for efforts of the Jordanian Armed Forces to secure that country's border with Syria.

Earlier today GEN Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of

Staff, wrote a letter to the leadership of the Senate and the House of Representatives in which he strongly urges completion of action on the National Defense Authorization Act this year. General Dempsey's letter provides a long list of essential authorities that will lapse if this bill is not enacted. This is just one paragraph from his letter:

The authorities contained [in the National Defense

Authorization Act] are critical to the Nation's defense and

urgently needed to ensure we all keep faith with the men and

women, military and civilian, selflessly serving in our Armed

Forces.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that General Dempsey's letter, with that attachment, be printed in the Record.

We have not failed to pass a National Defense Authorization Act for 52 years even when, as I mentioned, in a couple cases in recent years the final bill was the result of a process like we have had to follow with this year's authorization bill.

This is not the best way to proceed, but our troops and their families and our Nation's security deserve a defense bill, and this is the only practical way to get a defense bill done this year. There is no other way, because, as I indicated before, the House of Representatives is--we could not get a bill done before the end of this week if we brought back the bill that was pending before Thanksgiving. There is no way we can do it. And the experience in the week before the Thanksgiving recess demonstrated pretty clearly there is no way we could get a defense bill, such as the one that was pending, passed in this body before the end of this week.

The problem is that the House of Representatives is done at the end of this week. If we use the pending bill that was previously pending as the vehicle, we cannot possibly get to a conference, get an agreement on a conference, get a conference report, go back to the House of Representatives, and then get a conference report here, because the House of Representatives is done on Friday.

This is the only path to a bill. We have not missed in 52 years, and the reason we do not miss is our troops and their families and the national security of this country. That is why we have not failed. We cannot fail this year. The only practical way to avoid failure is if we follow the course which Senator Inhofe and I are now proposing to this body. Again, it is not the preferred course. It just happens to be the only course.

I thank Senator Inhofe and all the members of our committee for the way they have worked on this bill for now almost a whole year and for the final product, which I believe will have the full committee support or at least almost all of us. There were only three members of our committee who did not vote for the bill that came to the floor before.

I yield the floor.

The point of the Senator from Arizona is extremely well taken. There is, relevant to his point, a list of expiring authorities which we have just received from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Dempsey. I put that letter in the Record; we got it literally a few hours ago--listing some of the expiring authorities, including a number that the Senator mentioned and----

Special pay and bonuses, combat pay, travel and transportation allowances, nonconventional assisted recovery capability, the authorities to do MILCON, which were mentioned by the Senator from Oklahoma. It is a long list. There will be a real chasm if we don't do this this year. You cannot just say: Well, it will go to next year. Senator Inhofe pointed out, I believe, that in one or two cases where it actually did get signed in the year after the bill was passed, it was because there was a veto by a President and the veto override took place, I believe, in the weeks after January.

But these expiring authorities are very serious. We are going to tell men and women in combat that there is a gap in their combat pay? We don't know for sure that it will ever be filled. This is what General Dempsey mentioned in his letter. He said: Allowing the bill to slip to January adds yet more uncertainty to the force and further complicates the duty of our commanders who face shifting global threats. I also fear that delay may put the entire bill at risk, protracting this uncertainty and impacting our global influence.

Then he gave us a list of the expiring authorities.

So the Senator from Arizona raises a very critical issue. Now, it is not desirable for us to pass a bill as we have. But with the help of the Senator from Arizona when he was the ranking member, we were able, on two occasions, in a situation where there were objections to amendments being offered on the Senate floor--I will not go into all the details, but 2 of the last 5 years we were put in a position where we could not get the usual course followed, where the bill had a full amendment process on the Senate floor--it had some, as this bill has, but not enough time. Then we ran into that wall, and we were able to work out a bipartisan resolution to present to the Senate, sort of a virtual conference report--not

technically a conference report but a bill, a fresh bill, a new bill which merged and blended the bill that passed the Senate Armed Services Committee in those 2 years with the bill that passed the House of Representatives. We then on a bipartisan basis presented those two bills to the Senate, and they were passed.

The Senator points out the reality, which is what is likely to happen in January. There is another reality that what will happen in January is it will be very difficult to get to this bill because of the crushing business of CRs and other crushing business in January, even if we meet in January.

The shortest answer I could give to my friend from Arizona is the following: I am in combat. I am in combat somewhere in the world and I am going to read: Combat pay stops on December 31.

There are dozens of these kinds of authorizations that are listed in General Dempsey's letter, dozens of them, that just stop on December 31. Take only that one. Think about that and what kind of an impression we are giving to our men and women who are in combat, in harm's way, when they read: Combat pay stops.

Yes, maybe it will be extended in January or in February, but that is actually unsatisfactory. It will be outrageous for us not to pass this bill.

I thank the Senator from Arizona for everything he has been doing for so many decades for this country, including our committee. It is invaluable. We are going to get this bill passed. That is our determination.

It will be a shock to every American if we are unable to pass the Defense authorization bill. It will be totally intolerable. I know Senator Inhofe and I will help Senator McCain and others get this bill done this year.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that after my remarks, the Senator from Alabama be recognized.

Mr. President, in the past, a few Senate majorities, frustrated by their inability to get certain bills and nominations to a vote, have threatened to ignore the rules and change them by fiat, and to change rules to a majority vote change. Rule XXII of the Senate requires two-thirds of the Senate to amend our rules. A new precedent has now been set, which is that a majority can change our rules. Because that step would change this Senate into a legislative body where the majority can, whenever it wishes, change the rules, it has been dubbed the nuclear option.

Arguments about the nuclear option are not new. Senator Arthur Vandenberg confronted the same question in 1949. Senator Vandenberg, who was a giant of the Senate and one of my predecessors from Michigan, said if the majority can change the rules at will, ``there are no rules except the transient, unregulated wishes of a majority

of whatever quorum is temporarily in control of the Senate.''

When Senator Vandenberg took that position, he was arguing against changing the rules by fiat, although he favored the rule change that was being considered.

Overruling the ruling of the Chair, as we have now done, by a simple majority is not a one-time action. If a Senate majority demonstrates it can make such a change once, there are no rules which bind a majority, and all future majorities will feel free to exercise the same power-- not just on judges and executive appointments but on legislation.

We have avoided taking those nuclear steps in the past, although we have avoided them sometimes barely. I am glad we avoided the possible use of the nuclear option again earlier this year when our leaders agreed on a path allowing the Senate to proceed to a vote on the President's nominees for several unfilled vacancies in his administration. Today we are once again moving down a destructive path.

The issue is not whether to change the rules--I support changing the rules--to allow a President to get a vote on nominees to executive and most judicial positions. But this is not about the ends but the means. Pursuing the nuclear option in this manner removes an important check on majority overreach. As Senator Vandenberg said: If a Senate majority decides to pursue its aims unrestrained by the rules, we will have sacrificed a professed vital principle for the sake of momentary convenience.

Republicans have filibustered three eminently qualified nominees to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. They make no pretense of argument that these nominees are unqualified. The mere nomination of qualified judges by this President, they say, qualifies as court packing. It is the latest attempt by Republicans, having lost two Presidential elections, to seek preventing the duly elected President from fulfilling his constitutional duties.

The thin veneer of substance laid over this partisan obstruction is the claim that the DC Circuit has too many judges. To be kind, this is a debatable proposition, one for which there is ample contrary evidence, and surely one that falls far short of the need to provoke a constitutional battle. Republicans know they cannot succeed in passing legislation to reduce the size of the court. So, presented with a statutory and constitutional reality they do not like, they have decided to ignore that reality and have decided they can obstruct the President's nominees for no substantive reason.

Let nobody mistake my meaning. The actions of Senate Republicans in these matters have been irresponsible. These actions put short-term partisan interest ahead of the good of the Nation and the future of this Senate as a unique institution. It is deeply dispiriting to see so many Republican colleagues who have in the past pledged to filibuster judicial nominees only in extraordinary circumstances engaged in such partisan gamesmanship. Whatever their motivations, the repercussions of their actions are clear. They are contributing to the destruction of an important check against majority overreach. To the frustration of those willing to break the rules to change the rules, those of us who are unwilling to do that have now seen it occur before our eyes when the Chair was overruled earlier today.

So why don't I join my Democratic colleagues in supporting the method by which they propose to change the rules? My opposition to the use of the nuclear option to change the rules of the Senate is not a defense of the current abuse of the rules. My opposition to the nuclear option is not new. When Republicans threatened in 2005 to use the nuclear option in a dispute over judicial nominees, I strongly opposed the plans, just as Senator Kennedy, Senator Biden, and Senator Byrd did, and just about every Senate Democrat did--including Democrats still in the Senate today.

Back then, Senator Kennedy called the Republican plan a ``preemptive nuclear strike,'' and said:

Neither the Constitution, nor Senate rules, nor Senate

precedents, nor American history, provide any justification

for selectively nullifying the use of the filibuster. Equally

important, neither the Constitution nor the Rules nor the

precedents nor history provide any permissible means for a

bare majority of the Senate to take that radical step without

breaking or ignoring clear provisions of applicable Senate

Rules and unquestioned precedents.

Here is what then-Senator Biden said during that 2005 fight:

The nuclear option abandons America's sense of fair play.

It's the one thing this country stands for. Not tilting the

playing field on the side of those who control and own the

field. I say to my friends on the Republican side, you may

own the field right now but you won't own it forever. And I

pray to God when the Democrats take back control, we don't

make the same kind of naked power grab you are doing.

My position today is consistent with the position that I and every Senate Democrat took then--and that is just back in 2005--to preserve the rights of the Senate minority. I can't ignore that. Nor can I ignore the fact that Democrats have used the filibuster on many occasions to advance or protect policies we believe in.

When Republicans controlled the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives from 2003-2006, it was a Democratic minority in the Senate that blocked a series of bills that would have severely restricted the reproductive rights of women. It was a Democratic minority in the Senate that beat back efforts to limit Americans' right to seek justice in the courts when they are harmed by corporate or medical wrongdoing. It was a Democratic minority in the Senate that stopped the nominations of some to the Federal courts who we believed would not provide fair and unbiased judgment. Without the protections afforded the Senate minority, total repeal of the estate tax would have passed the Senate in 2006.

We don't have to go back to 2006 to find examples of Senate Democrats using the rules of the Senate to stop passage of what many of us deemed bad legislation. Just last year, these protections prevented adoption of an amendment which would have essentially prevented the EPA from protecting waters under the Clean Water Act. We stopped an amendment to allow loaded and concealed weapons on land managed by the Army Corps of Engineers. With minority votes, we stopped legislation that would have allowed some individuals who were deemed mentally incompetent access to firearms. That is just in the last year. Removing these minority protections risks that in the future, important civil and political rights might disappear because a majority agreed they should.

Let us not kid ourselves. The fact that we changed the rules today just to apply to judges and executive nominations does not mean the same precedent won't be used tomorrow or next year or the year after to provide for the end of a filibuster on legislation, on bills and amendments that are before us.

Just as I have implored my Democratic colleagues to consider the implications of a nuclear option which would establish the precedent that the majority can change the rules at will, it is just as urgent for my Republican colleagues to end the abuse of rules allowing extended debate that were intended to be invoked rarely.

Some of my Democratic colleagues may rightfully ask, if a Democratic majority cannot initially muster a supermajority to end filibusters or change the rules, then what can the majority do? The rules give us the path, and that is to make the filibusterers filibuster. Let the majority leader bring nominations before the Senate, and let the Senate majority force the filibusterers to come to the floor to filibuster. The current rules of the Senate allow the Presiding Officer to put the pending question to a vote when no Senator seeks recognition. Let us, as the Senate majority, dedicate a week, or a weekend, or even a night, to force the filibusterers to filibuster.

In 2010, in testimony before the rules committee on this subject, this is what Senator Byrd said:

Does the difficulty reside in the construction of our

rules, or does it reside in the ease of circumventing them? A

true filibuster is a fight, not a threat, not a bluff. . . .

Now, unbelievably, just the whisper of opposition brings the

``world's greatest deliberative body'' to a grinding halt.

Then he said:

Forceful confrontation to a threat to filibuster is

undoubtedly the antidote to the malady.

We have not used that antidote to the malady which besets this body, allowing the mere threat of a filibuster to succeed without challenging that threat, without telling the filibusterers: Go ahead, filibuster. We have rules that protect us. When you pause and when there is no one else here, at 3 o'clock on the fourth day or the fifth day or the sixth day, the Chair can put the question. The American people will then see in a dramatic way the obstruction which has taken place in this body.

But before a Senate majority assumes a power that no Senate majority before us has assumed, to change the rules at the will of the majority, before we do something that cannot easily be undone--and we have now done it--before we discard the uniqueness of this great institution, let us use the current rules and precedents of the Senate to end abuse of the filibuster. Surely we owe that much to this great and unique institution.

There is a conversation, which was a formal conversation between the majority and Republican leaders just last January. Here is what the majority leader said:

In addition to the standing order [which is what we have

adopted] I will enforce existing rules to make the Senate

operate more efficiently. After reasonable notice, I will

insist that any Senator who objects to consent requests or

threatens to filibuster come to the floor and exercise his or

her rights himself or herself. This will apply to all

objections to unanimous consent requests. Senators should be

required to come to the floor and participate in the

legislative process, to voice objections, engage in debate or

offer amendments.

He said:

Finally, we will also announce that when the majority

leader or bill manager has reasonably alerted the body of the

intention to do so and the Senate is not in a quorum call and

there is no order of the Senate to the contrary, the

Presiding Officer may ask if there is further debate, and if

no Senator seeks recognition, the Presiding Officer may put

the question to a vote.

He, our majority leader, said:

This is consistent with the precedent of the Senate and

with Riddick's Senate Procedure.

What this showed again is that if we in the majority have the willpower, as much willpower as has been shown by some obstructionists in this body--if we have an equal amount of will as they have shown, that the current rules, before this change today, can be used to force filibusterers to filibuster, to come to the floor and to talk, all we need is the willingness to use the rules, to take the weekend off, to take a week that we hoped for a recess, and use it to come back here; to take the recess itself, if necessary during the summer, for 1 month if necessary, to try to preserve what is so essential to this body, its uniqueness, which is that the majority cannot change the rules whenever it wants.

The House of Representatives can change the rules whenever it wants. It is called a rules committee. They can adopt and modify the rules at any time, and they do. This body has not done that. We have resisted. We have been tempted to do it. We have come close to doing it. But we have never done it--until today.

Do I want to amend the rules? Do I. I want to amend these rules with all my heart. I want to embody a principle that a President, regardless of party, should be able to get a vote on his or her nominees to executive positions at the district and circuit courts. I believe in that. I believe most Senators believe in that. We need to change the rule. But to change it in the way we changed it today means there are no rules except as the majority wants them. It is a very major shift in the very nature of this institution, if the majority can do whatever it wants by changing the rules whenever it wants with a method that has not been used before in this body to change the very rules of this body.

We should have avoided a nuclear option. We should have avoided violating our precedents. We should have avoided changing and creating a precedent which can be used in the same way on legislation. It may give comfort to some today: ``But this is only on judges, this is only on executive appointments.'' This precedent is equally available to a majority that wants to change the rules relative to the legislative process.

Those who have abused these rules, mainly on the other side of the aisle, whether they acknowledge it, are contributors to the loss of protections which we see today for the Senate minority. Given a tool of great power, requiring great responsibility, they have recklessly abused it. But now I am afraid it will not just be they who will pay the price.

In the short term, judges will be confirmed who should be confirmed. But when the precedent is set, the majority of this body can change the rules at will, which is what the majority did today. If it can be changed on judges or on other nominees, this precedent is going to be used, I fear, to change the rules in consideration of legislation. Down the road--we don't know how far down the road, we never know that in a democracy--but down the road the hard-won protections and benefits for our people's health and welfare will be lost.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, we will soon vote on whether to invoke cloture on S. 1197, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. This bill was reported out of the Armed Services Committee with a strong bipartisan vote of 23 to 3. We have enacted a National Defense Authorization Act every year for more than 50 years, and it is critically important that we do so again this year.

We spent all day yesterday debating two amendments addressing sexual assault in the military, but we have not been allowed to vote on them. There was opposition on the other side to voting even on those two amendments which have now been fully debated. We were told that Senators wouldn't let us vote on the sexual assault amendments because they were afraid those would be the only votes. We offered to lock in additional amendments, six for Democrats, six for Republicans. That got an objection. Staff had built up a cleared amendment package of 39 additional amendments on a bipartisan basis, about half for each side, that were all agreed to on the merits. Again, we got thwarted.

So over and over, we had objections to considering amendments, based on the accusation that we were not considering enough amendments. But how on earth does blocking the consideration of amendments that we can all agree on advance the cause of considering amendments?

I am going to continue to work with my friend from Oklahoma--and we are good friends and we work together well. He is right. I am going to continue to work toward an agreement that will enable us to proceed with additional amendments on this bill.

This would not be the first time this kind of a problem has happened on a Defense authorization bill. In 2008, one Senator objected to cleared amendment packages and to bringing up amendments. As a result, we were able to have only two rollcall votes and adopted only 9 amendments--all of which were agreed to before the objection was raised. Then, as now, the objection did not result in more amendments being adopted but, rather, in almost no amendments being adopted at all. In 2008, we invoked cloture and proceeded with the bill with virtually no Senate amendments--a result which was less than ideal, but at least it enabled us to enact a National Defense Authorization Act that year.

We must pass a national defense authorization bill. If we fail to do so, we will be letting down our men and women in uniform and failing to perform one of Congress' most basic duties--providing for the national defense.

As is the case every year, if we fail to enact this bill, our troops will not get the full amount of compensation to which they are entitled. If we fail to act, the Department's authority to pay out combat pay, hardship duty pay, special pay for nuclear-qualified servicemembers, enlistment and reenlistment bonuses, incentive pay for critical specialties, assignment incentive pay, and accession and retention bonuses for critical specialties will expire on December 31.

After that date, we will have troops in combat who will not get combat pay. We will lose some of our most highly skilled men and women with specialties that we vitally need. Not only will we be shortchanging our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, but we will be denying our military services critical authorities they need to recruit and retain high-quality servicemembers, and to achieve their force-

shaping objectives as they draw down their end strengths.

That is not all. If we fail to enact this bill, school districts all over the United States that rely on supplemental impact aid to help them educate military children will no longer receive that money. If we fail to enact this bill, the Department of Defense will not be able to begin construction on any new military construction projects in the coming year. That means our troops won't get the barracks, ranges, hospitals, laboratories, and other support facilities they need to support operational requirements, conduct training, and maintain equipment. It means that military family housing will not receive needed upgrades.

If we fail to enact this bill, the existing military land withdrawals will expire at China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station and Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range. That means our military will have to cease operations on those vital test and training ranges, losing critical testing and training capabilities that they relied on for the last 25 years.

If we fail to enact this bill, the Department of Defense will run out of money for the construction of the first ship of the Navy's new class of aircraft carriers, the Gerald R. Ford. That means the Navy will have to issue a stop work order on the construction of the Ford, requiring them to lay off workers and requiring a break in production that will add hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars not only to the cost of the Ford, but also to the cost of follow-on aircraft carriers.

It goes on and on. If we fail to enact this bill, we will enact none of the far-reaching reforms we need to address on the problem of sexual assault in the military. Already we have been blocked in our effort to clear a package of manager's amendments, including Senator Boxer's amendment reforming the article 32 process.

Now, we are not only going to lose important reforms, but there are two dozen measures that are in the bill which address the problem of sexual assault. If we don't adopt this bill, we won't be providing a Special Victims' Counsel for victims of sexual assault. We won't make retaliation for reporting a sexual assault a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. If we don't adopt this bill, we won't require commanders to immediately refer all allegations of sexual assault to professional criminal investigators. We won't restrict the authority of senior officers to modify the findings and sentence of court-martial convictions, and we won't require higher level review of any decision not to prosecute allegations of sexual assault.

We have already failed our men and women in uniform by failing to end sequestration. We should not fail them again by failing to enact the many critical measures included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.

I would be happy to yield.

I ask unanimous consent that be allowed.

Madam President, there are no Democrat amendments on his list.

We cannot agree with a list of amendments, many of which are not agreed to on this side, many of which would be filibustered on this side, which would result in just making it impossible for us to get to a Defense authorization bill conclusion.

I ask unanimous consent that a unanimous consent request--which I was going to make but I will withhold--that lists 26 amendments, half Democratic, half Republican, that I was going to ask consent be adopted because they have been cleared--which I understand will be objected to so I will not make the unanimous consent request--be printed in the Record.