Floor Statements

I have to ask for regular order.

Mr. President, obviously we regret that we have not been able to reach an agreement. I am especially disappointed that we are unable to consider the Ayotte amendment, which is an alternative to the sequestration. A flexibility of sequestration would still sooner or later have the same Draconian effects on our national security.

I also would point out to my colleagues that what we are about to go through is in some respects a charade because we know the proposal on that side will not succeed with 60 votes, and the proposal on this side will not succeed with 60 votes. Meanwhile, the clock moves on until sometime tomorrow night.

Some of us warned for a long time about the effects of sequestration, and if we want to have a blame game, then I will take blame, everybody takes blame. But isn't it time that we prevented what our military leaders in uniform, who have made their careers and their lives serving and sacrificing for this country, say would harm and inflict terrible damage on our ability to defend this Nation, our inability to train and equip the men who are serving? I always appreciate very much when Members on both sides of the aisle praise the men and women who are serving in the military. I am always pleased to see that. But shouldn't we be thinking about them now? Shouldn't we be thinking about those men and women who are serving who literally do not know what they are going to be doing tomorrow--like the crew of the aircraft carrier that they decided not to deploy to the Middle East at a time when tensions are incredibly high?

I would also point out to my colleagues that this is not a fair sequestration. Most Americans believe this is half out of defense, half out of nondefense. It is not.

Under the formulation of the sequestration, about half of the spending we engage in is exempt, such as compensation for the President, such as the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, such as payment to the District of Columbia Pension Fund, such as the Host Nation Support Fund for Relocation. All of these and many others were made exempt, which meant the cuts and the reductions in defense were even larger, and, obviously, those who designed this legislation decided that the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and relocation funding was more important than national defense because we didn't exempt national defense.

That is disgraceful.

Nineteen percent of discretionary spending is out of defense. We are asking for a 50-percent cut out of defense, on top of $87 billion that has already been enacted under Secretary Gates, on top of $487 billion in defense which is already on track to be cut. The percentage of gross national product for defense continues to decline.

What are we doing?

A few days ago there was a wonderful ceremony in the White House where a brave young American received the Congressional Medal of Honor. I happened to go to an evening function at a pizza place with him and his comrades who fought. A book was written by Jake Tapper, an excellent book--I recommend it to all of my colleagues--about eight of their comrades who were killed. Here we are unable to make sure these young men and women serving in harm's way have the equipment, the training, and everything they need to defend this Nation. We are doing the men and women who are serving this Nation a great disservice, and the President did them a disservice when he said in the campaign: Not to worry, sequestration won't happen. The President of the United States said that. I didn't say it. The three of us traveled this country warning about the effects of sequestration. Of course, we now know the idea came from the White House. That is the blame game, and I will be glad to engage in this game.

Can't we at least come to some agreement to prevent this? Are we going to lurch from one fiscal cliff to another? If we want to do that, that is one thing.

General Odierno is one of the great leaders I have had the opportunity of knowing for many years. General Odierno, the Chief of Staff of the Army, a man who has decorations from here to there, said he cannot replace the men and women who are serving in Afghanistan under this sequestration because he doesn't have the ability to train their replacements. Isn't that an alarm for us?

We are going to go through a charade here. In a little while we are going to have a vote on the Democratic proposal, and it will not get sufficient

votes; and the same thing here on this side, and the clock will tick.

Tomorrow, on the last day, the President is going to call people over to the White House to see if we can address it. Where was he in the last year?

Again, I am not taking the floor today for the blame game. I am pleading for the men and women who are serving this Nation in harm's way who every single day have a hell-of-a-lot tougher time than we do. Can't we do something on their behalf to sit down with the President of the United States, who is Commander in Chief, and get this issue resolved before we do great damage to our national security?

I thank Senator Ayotte for her proposal. It contains real reductions in spending so we don't have to go through this sequestration. On the one side, now we have a choice between ``flexibility,'' which nobody really knows exactly what that means--and on the other side, obviously, a proposal that really bears no relevance to the issue that faces us.

I thank my colleagues for the time. If I sound a little emotional on this issue, it is because I am. It seems to me we, at least on this issue of national security and the men and women who serve our Nation, should come together. I stand ready to put everything on the table to prevent what could be, in the words of the departing Secretary of Defense, a devastating blow to our ability to defend this Nation in what I could make an argument are the most dangerous times.

I yield the floor.

I would ask the Senator to yield to respond to one question.

I have the right to ask a question from the person who has the floor.

My question is, does the Senator think the American people appreciate and understand what this does to the lives of the American men and women who are serving? For example, those who are serving on that aircraft carrier they said was going to deploy for many months and was cancelled at the last minute, the training plans which are now going to be cancelled, the deployments which will be changed-- not to mention the massive layoffs in the defense industry, which sometimes are not easily replaceable. That is my question.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the recent testimony of former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman before the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee of House Armed Services Committee. In my view, Secretary Lehman presents important testimony that highlights the need for maintaining a strong maritime defense capability in an increasingly uncertain international security environment.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to join in a colloquy with my colleague from South Carolina.

Madam President, there seems to be a lot of back and forth and misinformation about where various Senators stand on the issue of the Hagel nomination. I have a statement I will give in a few minutes about why I am opposed to Senator Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense, but I think it is important to make a couple points. One is that the distinguished chairman and I were here back in 1988.

In 1988, on December 16, John Tower was nominated to be Secretary of Defense.

On January 25, 1989, his confirmation hearings began. On February 2, 1989, the committee postponed the confirmation vote after allegations were raised. On February 8, the committee vote was delayed again until February. February 23, he was voted out of the committee. March 10 was the time where the Senate rejected the nomination by 53 to 47.

I was there. I saw. One of the worst things I have ever seen in the history of the Senate, the way they dragged out Senator John Tower--a good and decent man's reputation with allegation after allegation, all of which turned out to be false. So I would like to inform my colleagues, this is not the first time we have had a delay in the confirmation of a Secretary of Defense.

I will be glad to go over what I saw, including allegations that were thrown over the transom day after day, week after week. They destroyed a good and decent man in Senator John Tower. So the allegation that somehow we are dragging this out or delaying it, it is not the first time in history, I will say to my dear friend, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Having said that, there are still questions outstanding. I believe Senators have the right to have those questions answered. The Senator from South Carolina and I, the Senator from New Hampshire had a response from the President today on the question we had, but there are other questions. But I think during the break is sufficient time to get any additional questions answered. I will vote in favor of cloture on the day we get back. I believe my colleagues would also--a number of my colleagues would do the same.

I think that is a sufficient period of time to get answers to outstanding questions. I think Senator Hagel, after that period of time, deserves a cloture vote and an up-or-down vote on his nomination.

I ask if my colleague wants to comment.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Tennessee, who also, in my view, is one of the great protectors of the Senate, preserving its tradition and customs--I would ask if he has a view on this issue. I wish to repeat: I would vote for cloture. The Senator from South Carolina would vote for cloture. I would be interested in the view of the Senator from Tennessee on this whole issue.

Madam President, I note that the present occupant of the chair is familiar with the rigors of this process as well. So I think it is important to note. Again, I wish to say that it is one thing to support or oppose a nominee, but I do not believe a nominee deserves a dragged-out process. I think the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from Massachusetts would agree with me; that it might be a disincentive in the future for well-qualified men and women who want to serve, who see a process that is dragged out and allegations made and requirements for disclosure that frankly are not required.

I note the presence of the majority leader on the floor, so I would like to filibuster for an hour or so.

I yield to the majority leader.

Madam President, reserving the right to object. I will not object, I will just respond to my friend. He is my dear friend. I did not note that sense of urgency for 3 months when John Tower's nomination was held in limbo by the then-majority

Democrats. The Secretary of Defense post was vacant at that time as well. So this is not the first time in history a Secretary of Defense position has been vacant.

Again, I hope we can get this resolved, move forward. I think the Senator from Michigan, my friend, understands we can get this issue resolved on the day we return from the recess. Certainly, there are, I believe, sufficient votes to invoke cloture at that time.

Madam President, I always enjoy some exchanges with my friend, the chairman. But the fact is, as the chairman knows, that was delayed and delayed and delayed. A new allegation came in, it was delayed. A new allegation came in, it was delayed. All those allegations turned out to be false. I will not rewrite history anymore, except to say it was one of the more shameful chapters, in my view, in the history of the Senate.

Again, I thank him. I am confident that within 1 week or so we will probably have this vote completed. I do not object to the unanimous consent request.

Madam President, how much time remains on either side?

I yield myself 10 minutes.

For all the years that I have known Senator Hagel, I have known him to be an honorable man and a patriot in this Chamber and elsewhere--overseas, in the field of battle. Senator Hagel has served this country faithfully and with distinction.

We have our differences. Senator Hagel was and remains my friend. There was a time when Senator Hagel and I saw the world and America's role in it in much the same way.

When the Balkans were torn apart with mass atrocities and genocide, Senator Hagel and I stood together with Senators Bob Dole and Joe Lieberman to lend bipartisan support to President Clinton in taking more forceful action to end the slaughter.

In May 1999, Senator Hagel said on this very floor why the United States should intervene militarily in Kosovo:

But we also understand there are things worth going to war

for, there are things worth dying for. . . . When people are

being slaughtered at a rather considerable rate, and genocide

is occurring, and ethnic cleansing is occurring, and people

are being driven from their homes.

On and on.

What do we do now? The geopolitical consequences, the

humanitarian consequences involved in this are great.

He went on to say:

History has surely taught us that when you defer the tough

decisions, when you let the butchers continue and the tyrants

and dictators continue, it gets worse. And it has gotten

worse with Milosevic. For 10 years we've dealt with him. Four

wars he's started.

Et cetera.

I agreed with his statement at the time, and I still do. I think it applies with greater or equal force to Syria today. I am not sure that Senator Hagel believes that anymore.

When America was attacked on September 11, 2001, Senator Hagel and I urged a strong American response to vanquish the enemies who attacked us, beginning in Afghanistan. Two years later, President Bush decided the United States may have to use force against Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and then Senator Hagel and I voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq.

Senator Hagel and I were often together in our criticism of the Bush administration's conduct of the war in Iraq. We both were disturbed by the apparent arrogance of then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his abject failure to respond to the clear fact that we were losing the war in Iraq on the ground.

In August 2003 I urged President Bush to send more troops. The Senator from South Carolina and I called for the resignation of the Secretary of Defense, and we wanted to change our strategy, to replace military and civilian leaders who were failing in their responsibilities. Senator Hagel, on the other hand, believed we should cut our losses and withdraw from Iraq.

Since that time, Senator Hagel has taken policy positions that I believe call into question the quality of his professional judgment on issues critical to national defense. I am also concerned that Senator Hagel is ill-suited to lead the 2.5 million uniformed members of the Armed Services and to ensure the sound management of an agency that has an annual budget equal to the 17th largest economy in the world.

Of all the responsibilities of government, none is more fundamental than providing for the Nation's defense. We must have the most qualified and able person for the position, and having carefully reviewed Senator Hagel's long public record, I find his nomination wanting.

Senator Hagel's appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee failed to allay my concerns about his nomination. During the hearing he repeatedly refused to give an assessment of his previous statements on issues such as the troop surge in Iraq, the identification and engagement of terrorist organizations, and his past rhetoric about our allies. In response to these questions, he either assigned history the task of judging the merit of his past statements and positions or simply said:

If I had an opportunity to edit that, like many things I've

said, I would--I would like to go back and change the words

and the meaning.

History isn't likely to affirm Senator Hagel's declaration that the decision to increase forces in order to wage a counterinsurgency in Iraq, a decision that helped prevent our losing that war, he said was the most dangerous foreign policy blunder since Vietnam.

It is quite obvious now that statement was histrionic, woefully uninformed, and absurd. But I didn't raise it at Senator Hagel's hearing for the satisfaction of an ``I told you so'' moment, but to determine if Senator Hagel recognizes he was in error and, more importantly, if that recognition informs his judgment today.

I wanted to know if he had learned from his mistakes. Unfortunately, I am not confident that he has. After 2 weeks of reviewing his record, my concerns about whether Senator Hagel is ready to serve as Secretary of Defense have not diminished.

Nothing in Senator Hagel's background indicates he would effectively manage the Department of Defense. In today's unprecedented environment of fiscal uncertainty, ensuring that defense investment decisions affecting an agency as massive and unwieldy as the Department of Defense do not adversely impact our military readiness is enormously challenging. It requires that the Secretary have, as Secretary Gates and Secretary Panetta had, a proven track record of successfully managing large and complex organizations. Senator Hagel has no experience.

There are those of us who seek to cut waste, fraud, and abuse from the Department of Defense. Senator Hagel seeks something else entirely--to cut military capabilities that serve as tools to ensure our continued engagement throughout the world in support of America's interests and those of our allies.

In the eyes of the President, at least, Senator Hagel, however, apparently is the right man to oversee the continuing drawdown of the Armed Services. Over the past 4 years, the administration has pursued a program of defense reductions that exceed those expected of a normal post-war drawdown, cuts that have begun to directly undermine U.S. global military power. Last week, Secretary Panetta said people would stand by and deliberately hurt this country in terms of our national defense by letting sequestration take place.

My doubts about Senator Hagel's suitability extend beyond his prospective management of defense budgetary resources. The North Koreans recently tested another nuclear weapon. Iraq is

unraveling. The Iranians just rejected Vice President Biden's proposal at the Munich Security Conference for one-on-one talks concerning nuclear weapons. Libya, Mali, Tunisia, and Egypt are in various states of unrest, for which we have no strategy. We are in the most unsettled period since the end of the Cold War, and I have serious concerns as to the quality of Senator Hagel's professional judgment and the acuity of his views on critical areas of national security, including security in East Asia and the Middle East.

His record on Iraq was particularly troubling. As I alluded to a moment ago, in 2002 Senator Hagel voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq. By 2006, his support for the war had diminished.

After Republican losses in the 2006 midterm elections, the Senator wrote an opinion piece for the Washington Post under the title ``Leaving Iraq, Honorably,'' foreshadowing his opposition to the surge and advocating ``a phased troop withdrawal from Iraq.'' When President Bush announced his decision to surge troops in 2007, Senator Hagel actively campaigned against it.

He voted in February 2007 in favor of a bill expressing opposition to the surge and later in favor of measures to set a date certain for withdrawal of troops from Iraq, an equally bad policy. Senator Hagel wrote in his 2008 memoir, ``America: Our Next Chapter'' that ``history . . . will show'' that his legislative efforts to oppose the surge correctly framed the political matters at issue at the time.

Carl Levin, on the other hand, said in 2009:

In considering whether or not to surge troops in Iraq . . .

I think that history will show that President Bush reached

the right decision.

Senator Hagel advocated the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq by 2007 rather than negotiating an agreement for an enduring presence of U.S. forces. The President ultimately did exactly what Senator Hagel recommended, reportedly against the advice of military leaders. In response to written questions on this matter, Senator Hagel again stated that the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq was the right call and asserted that Iraq is in a better place today because of it. That is another Orwellian statement.

In fact, since the withdrawal of our forces in 2011, the fragile political accommodation made possible by the surge of 2007 has unraveled over the past year. Al-Qaida in Iraq is remobilizing. Iranian-backed Shiite militias are gaining strength. Meanwhile the country is on the brink of civil war as protests against the Maliki government draw thousands, Iranian aircraft are flying over Iraq with weapons for Syria, and there are many other examples. Nevertheless, Senator Hagel is equally quick to advocate full withdrawal from Afghanistan despite conditions on the ground or the advice of military commanders.

Senator Hagel's views on Iran are also profoundly troubling. Consider, for instance, his recent set of incorrect and confused responses to basic questions about President Obama's Iran policy during his confirmation hearing last month, which one senior White House official rightfully described as ``somewhere between baffling and incomprehensible.''

I am more deeply concerned by Senator Hagel's overall record on this issue.

Madam President, I ask for 2 additional minutes.

Finally, Senator Hagel's opposition to the use of sanctions, his apparent confusion about administration policies and its implications, and his apparent incomprehension of the threat a nuclear- armed Iran poses to international stability is alarming and would cause other nations to doubt the credibility of the President's commitments.

Senator Hagel is an honorable man who has sacrificed much and bravely for our Nation. About his character and love of country, there can be no doubt or debate. However, his positions on the principal national security issues facing our country--the Iranian nuclear program, the resurgent Islamist terrorist threat in North Africa and the Middle East, and, more broadly, whether we should maintain our ability to project strength in defense of our interests and allies'--indicate to me a disqualifying lack of professional judgment. Also, Senator Hagel's complete lack of experience in running an enterprise of such size and complexity casts further doubt.

Therefore, despite my esteem for Senator Hagel, on the basis of his record, I will not support his confirmation. I say this with regret, but he is the wrong person at the worst time for the job this day. We can and must do better.

I thank my colleagues.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, on behalf of Senator Grassley, and probably to his dismay, I call up the Grassley amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that further reading be dispensed with.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. King.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, this past year, our national debt passed a staggering $16 trillion, more than $51,000 for every man, woman, and child in America. Today, several very serious fiscal matters that would seriously impact the Department of Defense and the U.S. defense industrial base, including budget sequestration, the debt limit, and disposition of the defense budget for fiscal year 2013 remain unresolved. Underpinning all of these matters is the larger issue of why the culture of how the Department of Defense does business must change. While daunting, this question provides us with a valuable prism through which Senator Hagel's nomination, now pending consideration by the Armed Services Committee, should be considered.

By ``culture,'' I mean that the mindset that has for years pervaded how the Department of Defense buys goods and services and manages assets and resources without regard to either their affordability or what our service men and women actually need to defend the Nation.

After years of developing legislative initiatives intended to reform how the Department does business, I am convinced that the single most effective agent of cultural change at the Department is the right leadership: leadership that recognizes that the Department owes to the taxpayer a stewardship obligation to extract maximum value for every defense dollar spent, and a moral responsibility to the warfighter that these dollars are being spent wisely, to effectively procure desired combat capability.

We need strong fiscal leadership to reject the use-or-lose mentality that incentivizes managers of the Department's programs and activities to spend every dollar, no matter what our priorities really are, and replace it with a process that actually rewards sound program management, incentivizes efforts to cut costs, and rewards those who use entrepreneurship and ingenuity to meet mission requirements, while returning taxpayer funds to the U.S. Treasury. In other words, cultural change needs leadership that not only rejects ``business-as-usual'' but also challenges it. Where Senator Hagel is on this is not clear.

One area that reflects how desperately the Department of Defense needs to change its culture of inefficiency is how it procures goods and services, in particular, how it acquires major weapons systems. While reforms in this area have been attempted for more than 25 years, the same deplorable outcomes--major cost overruns, schedule slips, or failures to perform as promised--all persist. Why? It is because despite these efforts, the underlying culture within the Department of ``business-as-usual,'' which predisposes its largest programs to these outcomes, has been allowed to live on.

In how the Department procures its largest and most expensive weapons systems, this translates into a mindset that so fails to recognize the need for affordability that it has made the Department more willing than it should be to accept (at any cost) more risk than it can responsibly manage. There are far too many examples of where the Department begins a major program without knowing what it really wants or how these requirements should translate into technical specifications that are designed to generate the combat capability it really needs. Also, all too many times, there is no traceability between these specifications through a test regime that is sufficient to ensure that the system the Department is procuring is operational effective, suitable, and survivable before entering operational testing or early production. So what happens? These systems stay ``on rails''; blow through their original cost and schedule estimates; and, at the end of the day, bear little resemblance to what the war-fighter actually needs.

But program management, fixated on ``keeping the money flowing'', push the program--many times, reimbursing the contractor for its costs throughout, and with the parochial support of Members of this body-- down the development pipeline, offering facile excuses for poor performance and, ultimately, less-than-desired capability. All of this happens within an overall management system that is overly cumbersome and costly and provides for no meaningful accountability.

In the aggregate, this has been a ``perfect storm''. A defense procurement culture that is content with promises of exquisite solutions over actual affordability has squandered literally billions of taxpayer dollars. According to a recent study, since 2004, programs canceled by the Army alone consumed between $3.3 billion and $3.8 billion per year. That is 35 to 45 percent of the Army's annual budget for development, testing, and engineering over this period. Obviously, this is simply unacceptable and unsustainable.

Yet it happened again just recently. A couple of months ago, the Air Force, quite rightly, decided to kill a huge logistics supply chain management business system called the Expeditionary Combat Support System, ECSS. But it did so only after, one, sinking about $1 billion into the program since its start in 2005; two, recently finding that another $1.1 billion would be needed to field just 25 percent of ECSS's promised capability; and, three, extracting from the taxpayer's total $1 billion investment less than $150 million in usable hardware and software. I repeat: A total $1 billion investment, less than $150 million was obtained in usable hardware and software. This is a travesty. In terms of how little benefit we realized compared to how much was spent, it is one of the most egregious examples of mismanagement in recent memory.

Some reforms have helped, but much work needs to be done. The Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 and its prescription to ``start programs off right,'' was a move in the right direction. I am pleased to report that in its last of the three reports focused on how effectively the Department has been implementing that act, the Government Accountability Office recently found that the Department has been taking positive steps to implement this reform act.

It did so having sampled 11 weapons acquisition programs, including the KC-46A tanker, the SSBN(X) Ohio-class ballistic, missile submarine replacement, and the Ground Combat Vehicle, GCV. But getting rid of poor cost-, schedule-, and performance-outcomes and how the Department procures goods and services will require the sustained and enduring change that only a change in culture can provide. When it comes to defense procurement, a change in culture is possible only with leadership that recognizes that for government to act as a responsible steward over defense dollars, it must be as knowledgeable, skilled, and sophisticated a buyer as industry is a seller.

Whether Senator Hagel would serve as the right leader at the Department of Defense to foster needed cultural changes in the Department's procurement practices is unclear. What we do know is that the right person must embrace the following principles: Set realistic requirements early and manage changes to those requirements aggressively. The Department must enforce better discipline and achieve greater accountability in how it meets its most critical military needs by dismantling stovepipes among the requirements, acquisition policy, and budgeting communities and ensure clear lines of authority within acquisition organizations. With the benefit of robust participation by the uniformed military, requirements should be frozen early, allowing for sufficient trade-space among the program's cost- schedule- and performance-variables to ensure that it is effectively managed throughout its lifecycle. Exquisite high-risk, next-generation solutions should be spiraled out over time. In other words, programs should be set to shorter acquisition timelines and should be managed to them.

Improve the Department's ability to price risk--effectively and independently of industry--and budget to that cost. By ``risk,'' I mean the risk that a system is exposed to throughout its life cycle: technical-, software-, development-, integration-, manufacturing-, and sustainment-risk--all of them. Acquiring weapons systems thoughtfully vis-a-vis risk would minimize funding instability which can absolutely decimate a program's ability to deliver required capability on budget and on time and ultimately result in reliable systems that will be affordable to own and operate.

Revitalize, and where necessary, build-up the Department's ``organic'' workforce in areas most vital to ``buying smart'', like cost-estimating, technical- and systems-engineering, developmental testing, et cetera. The Department must be able to conduct proper should-cost analysis to inform its positions when it negotiates contracts and conduct engineering trade-off analysis to manage programs effectively over their lifecycles. With the benefit of this capability, the Department will be able to more effectively target affordability and control cost growth.

Require the use of the type of contract that is most appropriate to the level of risk to be managed in the fee structure that is most appropriate to the type of performance to be incentivized. This requires the Department to know what it needs and, in connection with that requirement, exactly what kind of contractor performance it wants to incentivize. To that extent and as quickly as possible, the Department must get its programs into a low- to moderate-risk environment where it can use fixed-price contracts to effectively incentivize cost control.

Better incentivize productivity and innovation. Rationalize profit policy and effectively use performance-based contracting and other tools in the contracting toolkit to incentivize and reward contractors for effectively managing costs, successfully managing their supply chains and indirect expenses, and actually delivering promised capability.

Promote real competition, instead of ``checking the blocks''. Nothing drives costs down and enhances quality more effectively than competition. The Department has to make sure that competition, or the option of competition,

is brought to bear on a program throughout its lifecycle, at both the systems and subsystems level. To the extent that the Department has been recently successful with some of its large, high-profile procurements, it is because it has been able to leverage competition aggressively.

Improve how the Department acquires services. Military departments that have started diving into this area have already found massive opportunities for savings and efficiency- easily amounting to billions of dollars. This initiative should not only continue; it should expand throughout the defense enterprise.

Reform how the Department procures information systems, especially, major automated information systems. While the technical aspects of these products are, of course, fundamentally different from major weapons systems, the basic tradecraft, especially those that reflect best business practices, shouldn't be that different. Procuring cyber- security capability may, however, require greater agility and flexibility than what can be provided under the long and slow ``deliberative'' acquisition process.

Improve the ``rapid acquisitions'' process. In support of on-going operations, the war-fighter cannot rely on the ``deliberative'' acquisition process to satisfy its needs. The process by which these sorts of urgent operational requirements are satisfied reliably and cost-effectively needs to be reformed.

Rein in the Department's ability to reprogram funds. I have been appalled that in fiscal year 2011 alone, the Department of Defense transferred nearly $27 billion among Defense accounts and that only $11 billion, or 40 percent of these transfers, received any type of congressional oversight. That oversight was limited to just 8 Senators out of 100. The oversight of the transfer of billions of dollars is confined to the oversight of eight Members of the U.S. Senate. I happened to be one of them for the last 6 years, but I don't think it is appropriate to transfer that kind of money without all 100 percent being apprised of the need to do so. Despite that the Department cannot be audited--the Department of Defense has never been audited--we continue to provide it with the flexibility to engage in what amounts to budget gamesmanship where certain accounts, such as operation and maintenance and base-operations support, which are intended to satisfy ``must-pay'' bills, are historically underfunded in the President's annual budget request, with the understanding that the Department will be able to transfer funds between accounts down-the-road. In my view, this type of budget gamesmanship is a big reason why the Department cannot annually produce auditable financial statements and frustrates objectively assessing the priority or urgency of the Department's requirements.

This brings me to the other major area of how the Defense Department ``does business'' that underscores the need for cultural reform, defense financial management, and the most significant thing that can be done in this area is finally getting the Department auditable.

There can be no doubt that the ability of the Department to be audited independently would help ensure that the defense dollars are not wasted, lost, or otherwise misused. Absent auditability, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has, since 1995, designated the Department's financial management as ``high-risk''.

Today's fiscal challenges bring new urgency to the issue of auditability at the Department of Defense. To navigate successfully through this period of austerity and fiscal uncertainty without inadvertently impinging on military readiness, the Department will have to make management decisions that are fully informed and carefully calibrated. To ensure intended results, the Department has to make sure these decisions are being executed as planned.

From well-managed companies in the private sector, which have to make decisions like this all the time, we know that reliable financial data, effective internal controls, efficient business processes, and sound business systems are needed to support an organization whose finances can be audited.

Granted, the Department won't use auditable financial statements themselves to make important management decisions, but the high quality of the financial information that feeds into financial statements that are ready-for-audit would be incredibly valuable, indeed indispensable, for identifying opportunities for savings and efficiencies; successfully implementing initiatives and management controls to realize these savings and efficiencies; and making sure that increasingly scarce defense dollars are redirected to higher defense priorities. This would give the primary stakeholders in how the Department is managed--the war-fighter and the taxpayer--confidence that the defense management decisions can be relied upon to produce intended results. Given the state of financial management at the Department of Defense today, we do not now have that confidence.

One big reason why we don't is that to date the Department's commitment to achieving financial auditability has been characterized by blown-deadline after blown-deadline. Various statutes, including the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, the Government Management Reform Act of 1994, the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996, and other provisions in various Defense authorization and appropriations acts, have required financial improvements at the Department of Defense for the Department to produce auditable financial statements. After continuous failure, we are at a point now where, for example, when then-Secretary of Defense Gates was trying to find efficiency and reduce waste at the Department a few years ago, he said what he was doing was ``something akin to an Easter egg hunt''. He explained, ``[M]y staff and I learned that it was nearly impossible to get accurate information and answers to questions such as `[h]ow much money do you spend?' and ``[h]ow many people do you have?'''

For this reason, after succeeding Secretary Gates, Secretary Panetta immediately elevated financial improvement to a top priority of the Department by directing the Department to cut in half the time to make a key financial statement, called the Statement of Budgetary Resources (SBR), ready-for-audit. This goal must be achieved by fiscal year 2014. Seeking to leverage Secretary Panetta's initiative and with the assistance of Senator Ayotte, the Senate Armed Services Committee included a provision in its authorization bill this year that formalizes this goal.

I am pleased to say that while much work needs to be done for the Department of Defense to achieve its audit-readiness goals, the Department has made some limited progress, particularly through its Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) plan, which the Senate Armed Services Committee legislated as a requirement a few years ago. The House Armed Services Committee's Panel on Defense Financial Management and Auditability Reform found early this year contained a ``reasonable strategy and methodology.''

In my view, it is no longer the case that top defense managers ``just don't get it'' or that they are dragging their feet because they don't see financial improvement as a priority. Indeed, perhaps the silver- lining in today's fiscal challenges is that it seems to have united top management at the Pentagon into finally realizing how important it is for the Department to become financially auditable.

Indeed, over the last few years, some agencies within the Department, such as the Army Corps of Engineers, the Military Retirement Fund, Defense Contracting Audit Agency, and TRICARE's Contract Management Activity have received clean audit opinions. As GAO's Director of Financial Management and Assurance Asif Khan recently said, Secretary Panetta's directive has resulted in a ``change in tone at the top'' that has ``reset'' the Department's efforts to achieve an unqualified audit opinion. How exactly would Senator Hagel, if confirmed, further Secretary Panetta's efforts here?

This is not an academic question. As the Department of Defense's Deputy Inspector General for Auditing Dan Blair recently noted, for the Department to achieve an auditable statement of budgetary resources (SBR) by 2014, it must run what amounts to ``a big checking account with thousands of people being able to write checks'' and that capturing an ``auditable universe''

within it will require reconciling between a general ledger and subsidiary ledgers.

A big problem is ongoing delay in implementing very expensive business computer systems called ``enterprise resource planning'' or ERPs, which perform a number of business-related functions vital to transforming the Department's business operations. The ECSS system I mentioned a few minutes ago is one of these ERPs.

As of December 2009, the Department of Defense has invested over $5.8 billion in these ERPs and will invest billions more before they are fully implemented. Most of them are over budget and behind schedule or haven't provided promised capability. Yet these ERPs make up more than half of the Department's entire expenditure in the area of business transformation, costing the taxpayers more than $1 billion per year.

This is vitally important. If the Department doesn't get ERPs right, like a system known as ECSS that cost $1 billion dollars, not only will the Department have squandered monies that it had already sunk into these programs but it will also severely undermined its ability to improve the efficiency and the effectiveness of scores of business- missions such as logistics and supply chain management, et cetera, that are key to supporting those service-men and -women who defend the Nation.

What needs to be done? From the top down, lines of authority must be clarified. The relevant workforce must be well-versed in government accounting practices and standards and be experienced in related- information technology. Given how vitally important these ERPs are to this mission, people who have actual experience successfully implementing global business systems must be properly mixed into the workforce, and contractors hired to integrate these business systems into the Department must be the best-qualified partners and held to the same high performance standards that should apply to any other major defense acquisition.

Within this overall structure, there must be sufficient oversight and accountability vis-a-vis a well-defined and federated business enterprise architecture that ensures that, in terms of organizational transformation and systems modernization, all the different elements of the Department are moving in the same direction toward a single goal. These kinds of issues need to have the day-to-day attention of the Department's Chief Management Officer, that is, the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the chief management officers within the military departments.

At this point, I am of the view that, with all of the congressional reforms and mandates in the area of financial improvement over the past few years, the Department of Defense has all the tools it needs to have in its tool-kit to achieve audit-readiness on time and on budget. The issue is leadership and execution. As the House Panel on Financial Management and Auditability Reform noted, a vital part of that is ``ensuring that senior leaders are held accountable when audit readiness goals are not met, and conversely, rewarded when goals are achieved''. Also, defense financial improvement must no longer be regarded as an activity important only to the Department's financial community. Field commanders have to be fully engaged and interested in driving change outside the Pentagon. If Senator Hagel is confirmed, his setting this tone from the top will be vitally important.

Is all this enormously challenging? It absolutely is, as befits an organization of the size and complexity of the Department of Defense. With an annual budget equal to the 17th largest economy in the world, as the Institute for Defense Analyses recently noted, the Department's ``business'' of achieving its unique and disparate missions worldwide on an ongoing and contingency basis equates more to an economy than a commercial business.

Be that as it may, with an annual federal budget deficit of $1.3 trillion and defense reductions of at least $487 billion and possibly, with sequestration, another $500 billion over the next 10 years, the Department needs to have reliable financial management data to help it distinguish between defense budget cuts that are prudent and necessary, and those that may impinge on military readiness and, therefore, endanger our national security.

Only a Department that can be audited can give us the assurance that the Department is moving in the right direction in terms of identifying the right opportunities to save defense dollars and eliminate waste, and redirecting increasingly scarce defense dollars to higher defense priorities.

All I have discussed today illustrates how important sound leadership at the top of the Department of Defense is to ``buying smarter'' and getting the Department ready-for-audit. Without leadership fundamentally and unalterably mindful of the Department's responsibility to the American people to use defense dollars wisely, this cultural change will forever remain elusive. For this reason, this body's consideration of the President's nominee to serve as the next Secretary of Defense will be more important than it has been in recent memory.

I would like to give credit to the present Secretary of Defense, Mr. Leon Panetta, who brought his knowledge and expertise on budgetary matters to his work at the Pentagon. I will say more about him later on, but I am very appreciative of the outstanding service present Secretary of Defense Panetta has provided to this Nation, with many long years of service both in elected as well as appointed office. We are proud to have Americans such as Secretary Panetta serving our Nation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

How much time is remaining?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I speak in opposition to the amendment evidenced by my friend, the Senator from Kentucky, which would prohibit the sale, licensing, approval, facilitation, transfer, retransfer, or delivery of any defense articles and services to the Government of Egypt, including F-16 aircraft and M-1 tanks.

There are many problems with this amendment. I would like to explain. First, the amendment is not revenue neutral. The Congressional Budget Office has not provided an official score, despite my request, but there is a way to avoid the basic fact that there are numerous costs associated with this amendment. The defense articles the Senator from Kentucky wishes to block and prohibit are manufactured by American workers and defense companies. They have contracts to produce this equipment, and American workers are doing that as we speak.

If the Federal Government steps in, as my colleague's amendment would mandate, those contracts would have to be immediately broken, and U.S. production lines would have to be shut down immediately. There is a cost of breaching a contract in this country, and there should be. That does not change just because the government is the one doing the breaching. This is also as it should be.

So the Senator's amendment would obligate the Federal Government to pay the many costs to American businesses and workers for breaking our commitments to them. Furthermore, many of these defense articles have already been produced. They have already been paid for. They are technically the property of the Egyptian Government already. If the Congress prohibits these defense articles from being delivered to Egypt, they become the responsibility of the U.S. Government. We will have to store them somewhere, and that is not free either.

In short, there are a lot of hidden costs in this amendment. If this provision becomes law in its current form, it will add to the national debt. This is fiscally irresponsible, and I cannot support it on these grounds alone.

Second, and more important than the costs associated with this amendment, it is harmful to America's national security interests. I know as well as anyone that Egypt is beset now with many problems.

I was in Egypt 2 weeks ago with a bipartisan delegation of my colleagues. The Muslim Brotherhood-led government, which I would remind my colleagues was elected by the Egyptian people, has done a poor job of governing in an exclusive and pluralistic way, establishing the rule of law, and building democratic institutions.

The results of the Egyptian Government's failing are plain to see in the awful street violence and expanding unrest in Egypt. President Morsi's government has not been able to stem the violence and has often made matters worse. Egyptian police seem to have neither the capacity nor the legitimacy to restore order. The fact is, despite its flaws, the Egyptian Army remains one of the major stabilizing forces in Egypt today. If, God forbid, the current unrest worsens, and Egypt tips deeper into civil conflict, the one force in that country that might be capable of pulling Egypt back from the abyss is the Egyptian military.

If the Senate were to adopt the amendment proposed by the Senator from Kentucky, we would not only be harming the effectiveness of the Egyptian military, which, by the way, is not objected to by the Israelis, who probably understand better than anyone what defense capabilities might be used someday to threaten their security, we would be rupturing a decades-long partnership and denying and squandering our influence with the leaders of one of the most important institutions in Egypt.

The ramifications of this decision would be enormous, especially when it comes to the ability of U.S. ships, including U.S. aircraft carriers and other

vessels, to transit the Suez Canal securely and effectively. I would urge the Senator from Kentucky to call the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and ask him what effect this would have on the U.S. military and America's overall national security.

As I say, this amendment would be even more detrimental to our ally Israel, for which the continuing instability in Egypt is an abiding, clear and present danger. I have seen no objections raised by our Israeli allies to U.S. military assistance to Egypt, nor do I expect to see any. Here too I would urge my colleague to pick up the phone and call the Israeli Ambassador or just recall what I am sure he heard from Israel's leaders during his recent visit there a few weeks ago.

This amendment is absolutely harmful to the national security of our ally Israel. The timing of the amendment is also detrimental because our government is currently engaged in discussions with the Egyptian Government and military about the need to shift our security cooperation more toward the kinds of programs and equipment Egypt needs to combat the threats they increasingly face: porous borders, a rising threat from terrorism, deteriorating conditions in the Sinai, and a security sector in dire need of reform. It is in Egypt's interest to move in this direction, as they are beginning to do. It is in our interest to help them.

If we adopt this amendment, the promise of this entire endeavor will be destroyed. Egypt will suffer, Israel will suffer, and the United States will suffer.

I oppose this amendment because it is uninformed and oblivious to the world challenges America faces and our continuing need to work with America's partners, imperfect and frustrating though they may be, to defend our Nation, our interests, and our allies in an increasingly dangerous world.

Finally, the Middle East is in a period of transition and change that we have not seen practically in its entire history. The Egyptians are key and vital to what happens in that part of the world. It is the heart, soul, and center of the Arab world. One out of every four Arabs who live in the Arab world lives in Egypt. It is the cultural and historic center of all the Arab world.

It is vital we do whatever we can to see that Egypt makes a transition to a free, democratic, and open society. That is in grave danger today. To pass this amendment today and send this message to Egypt in this very unstable and unsure time, I believe, would be exactly the wrong message at this time. I would also point out that this legislation has nothing to do with Egypt. It has nothing to do with Egypt.

A decision of this magnitude, in my view, requires hearings, debate, and legislation that would stand by itself, rather than in a 15- or 20- minute discussion on the floor of the Senate. For that reason alone, I urge my colleagues to overwhelmingly--as we have other amendments of the Senator from Kentucky--reject this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, when we debated the Hurricane Sandy Supplemental bill in the Senate prior to Christmas, I was unable to support the spending bill because much of the taxpayer funding in the bill had little or nothing to do with meeting the immediate needs of individuals misplaced by Hurricane Sandy. Unfortunately, not much has changed with the House bill that we will soon vote on. At a time when we face ongoing trillion-dollar deficits and a $16.4 trillion debt, we cannot justify this type of spending.

While some of the projects included in this bill may hold merit on their own, many of the projects included should go through the normal budget and appropriations process, where Congress has time to vet the need for such spending requests. To drive home this point, the Congressional Budget Office--CBO--analysis of the bill tells us that only 7 percent of the funding in this bill will be spent this year--FY 2013--and roughly 70 percent of the funding will not be spent until FY 2015 and beyond.

After examining this bill, I have found numerous examples of questionable spending:

Millions to replace automobiles owned by the Federal Government, including:

$1 million for DEA to replace 15 vehicles;

$230,000 for ATF to replace three vehicles;

$300,000 for the Secret Service vehicles; and

$855,000 for ICE vehicles.

The Federal Government currently owns or leases over 660,000 vehicles--surely we can find replacements within our current inventory. Shouldn't we focus on providing relief directly to those still trying to rebuild their lives before replacing a bureaucrat's car?

There is $16 billion for Community Development Block Grant funds for 47 States and Puerto Rico that can be used for events in 2011, 2012 and 2013.

There is $2 million to repair damage to the roofs of museums in Washington, D.C., while many in Hurricane Sandy's path still have no permanent roof over their own heads.

The bill includes $50 million for National Park Service Historic Preservation grants, which was not included in the President's request; $180 million for the Department of Agriculture's Emergency Watershed Protection program, which helps restore watersheds damaged by wildfires and droughts for areas including Colorado; highway funding for the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; $15 million for NASA facilities, though NASA itself has called its damage from the hurricane ``minimal.'' On the day after the storm hit, NASA's Wallops Island put out a statement stating that ``an initial assessment team surveyed roads and facilities at NASA's Wallops Flight Facility today reporting a number of downed trees but otherwise minimal impact in the wake of Hurricane Sandy.''

The bill includes $111 million for a weather satellite data mitigation gap reserve fund, a controversial program created by President Obama by executive order for ocean zoning planning; $8.5 million for weather forecasting equipment; $23 million for the USDA ``Forest Restoration Program'' for planting trees on private property. This program is actually a Farm Bill subsidy program that's run by a relatively unknown agency called the ``Farm Service Administration'' which is primarily responsible for managing crop insurance. Under this program, private landowners with about 50 acres of land can apply for up to $500,000 in free grants for tree planting activities.

The bill also includes $118 million for taxpayer-supported AMTRAK, $86 million more than the President's request. While some of the funding will go for repairs, money will also go to increasing passenger capacity to New York and future mitigation efforts. In a 2-page letter from AMTRAK that gives a broad description of how the money will be spent, almost all of it falls under funding for future capital projects. This includes funding for the ``Gateway Program.''

According to AMTRAK, the Gateway Program, which was started in 2011 and is projected to cost over $13 billion, is ``a comprehensive program of infrastructure improvements to increase track, tunnel, bridge, and station capacity serving New York City that will improve current assets and allow the eventual doubling of passenger trains into Manhattan.'' I am not here to debate the merits or the need for new tunnels, but this is clearly a capital improvement project--unrelated to Hurricane Sandy.

AMTRAK is up and running so it is not apparent why this funding is deemed ``emergency'' spending and included in this spending package. Keep in mind, AMTRAK receives roughly $1 billion in annual funding. Future mitigation projects should be debated in next year's budget process.

The bill includes $100 million for Head Start; $1 million for Legal Services Corporation; $3.5 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers-- with little clarity on how the money will be spent. More projects are not something the Army Corps can handle. They are currently experiencing a backlog of construction and maintenance projects of approximately $70 billion. Furthermore, a 2010 report released by the Government Accountability Office noted that carryover funds have increased ``due to the large amount of supplemental funding the Corps has received in recent years.'' Clearly, supplemental spending on the Army Corps has not paid off.

As a nation, we are $16.4 trillion in debt and dealing with trillion- dollar deficits. We do need to come to the aid of those who lost everything in Hurricane Sandy and are struggling to get their lives back together. Congress, however, cannot continue down this road of irresponsible spending. We must pass a true disaster spending bill that only spends money on disaster recovery and response, not pet projects.

Mr. President, before the Senator from Maryland leaves the floor, I would like to tell him how much I appreciate the remarks he just made. I think he gave a very accurate depiction of the agreement we reached after many hours of always pleasant conversation. The fact is we showed our colleagues and many others it is still possible for a group of us to join together on a very difficult issue and a very complex one.

The Senator from Maryland stated his preference just a minute ago that he is for majority rule. But he also understood that in order for us to come together, that we had to move--each of us--in a more centrist direction. Without his input, his efforts, and his willingness, in my view, it is very likely we would not have agreed.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Maryland and I engage in a colloquy.

I think the Senator from Maryland and I would agree that even though this is not a headline-grabbing issue and a lot of people in America have no real idea what was at stake, that if we hadn't reached this agreement amongst us, it could have had repercussions for a very long period of time in the Senate; would the Senator agree to that?

Wouldn't the Senator from Maryland agree that the whole purpose of this is not to block? In fact, with our numerous meetings with the Parliamentarians, I think we reached a greater and fuller understanding that if someone really, really wants to block progress in the Senate, given the incredible--if the word isn't ``arcane,'' it is certainly ``detailed''--rules of the Senate, they can.

But the real purpose of this and the outcome that the Senator from Maryland and I and Senator Kyl, Senator Barrasso, Senator Levin, Senator Schumer, Senator Pryor--and I note the presence of the Senator from Michigan on the floor; I think he would agree that this fix, this compromise we have all now agreed to--and hopefully we will agree to and pass shortly--is also intended to change an attitude in the Senate.

Instead of blocking everything moving forward and blocking amendments, perhaps we could create a new environment in the Senate where we will let the minority have their amendments, but also the minority party will let the process move forward. I think that is the tradeoff that was the fundamental aspect of the negotiations we continued in the office of the Senator from Michigan for many days and many hours.

I think the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Maryland would agree; if someone wants to block the Senate from moving forward, they can at least do it for some short period of time. What has happened, looking back 10, 15 years ago, the tree wasn't filled. But at the same time, on the other side, amendments were not produced by the hundreds. I believe the object and I believe the outcome of this hard-earned compromise will be that there will be a greater degree of comity in the Senate which would allow us to achieve the legislative goals that all of us seek.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Michigan join the Senator from Maryland and me in this colloquy.

I think my friend from Maryland would also agree that we have found, for example, on the Defense authorization bill, that once we get onto a bill and once we have some amendments--in the case of our agreement it was four--that now the Members are sort of invested in moving the process forward. The logjam has always appeared before the bill is ever taken up for debate and amendments. By expediting that process, without depriving Members of their rights but expediting that process, hopefully, we will get onto the bill and some amendments that are already--four in one option--are already agreed to, and then we can move forward.

I would like to point out one other thing, and I think my two colleagues would agree; that is, we are fairly well paid around here, and maybe sometimes we should work a 5-day workweek; and maybe, if absolutely necessary, God forbid, a 6-day workweek. We should be taking up legislation and completing that legislation before the end of the week or, depending on how massive the legislation is, at least 2 weeks. But there should be dates certain. It is funny how this body operates when there are deadlines as opposed to just extended periods of debate and amending.

It is a disgrace that we have not--in how many years?

I, again, would like to express my appreciation to Senator Schumer and Senator Cardin, Senator Pryor and my Republican colleagues, Senator Kyl and Senator Barrasso. But I would especially like to thank Senator Levin. We have known each other and worked together now for many years. We had very spirited and open and honest disagreements, but there is a level of trust and friendship that allows us, when committed to the same goal, to be able to--I believe, hopefully, in a very short period of time--achieve it.

Maybe I am being a little bit too optimistic. Hopefully, because of this, we can start moving legislation through the Senate. The record that we have achieved over the last 2 years is less than admirable. We know that filling the tree has dramatically increased, but we also know the objections to moving forward also have. I am not placing any responsibility on either side. I am placing the responsibility on both sides. Maybe we can start a new day, take up some legislation, pass it, and do the people's will. Maybe we would improve our favorability ratings to exceed that of--I saw a poll the other day; I don't know if my colleagues did. A colonoscopy is more favorable than Members of the Congress. I don't know if they saw that.

I hope we can at least raise it to some level above that. By getting things done around here I think that will probably enhance our chances of regaining some more favorability amongst the American people.

Again, I thank the Senator from Maryland and my friend from Michigan and, hopefully, in a couple of hours we will have achieved something that, in my view, could avert a fundamental change in the Senate which maybe could never have been repaired. I view it with the utmost seriousness. I have never been involved in an issue that impacted this body to the degree that the nuclear option would have caused. We would have regretted it for a long time. Hopefully, in a few hours we will have avoided it.

I just want to remind my friend from Maryland and the Senator from Michigan, this is going to be for 2 years. So we are in kind of an experimental phase. If we are unable to do the things that we aspire to, then I think you could see further Draconian measures considered by the majority. It is up to both sides to make this work.

I think it was about 383.

Mr. President, I ask that Senators Alexander and Barrasso engage in a colloquy with me about our understanding of the operation of the standing order that the Senate just adopted related to motions to proceed and nominations, and our intent in drafting it.

The prospect of the majority, for the first time, changing the Standing Rules of the Senate by violating the provisions of those very rules was jarring to me and several of my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, who care about this institution and the uniquely important role it serves in our Republic. Use of this unprecedented tactic for changing the standing rules would be a nuclear option, for it would irreparably damage the institution just to accommodate the desires of the current majority. Over the years Senators of both parties have eloquently stated where doing this would, in the words of the current majority leader in 2005, be: ``The end of the U.S. Senate.''

Some of the most vociferous proponents of this approach have never served in the minority. They do not appreciate that the course of action they were urging, if undertaken, ultimately would be to their disadvantage when they served in the minority, which inevitably some of them will. So Senators Alexander, Barrasso and I, along with our former colleague, Jon Kyl, began working with like- minded Members of the majority to diffuse this situation to meet the goals of making it easier for the majority to bring legislation to the floor and making it easier for a member of the minority to offer amendments to that legislation. We worked together to develop recommendations for the majority and minority leaders which we all believed would allow the Senate to function in a fairer and more effective way.

That is correct. And I want to underscore that the amendment construct we developed is not to be used as a ceiling to limit the ability of Members of the majority or the minority to offer just two amendments per side. Rather, we intend it to be used as an amendment floor--a minimum guarantee of amendments--that would serve to start the amendment process so as many Members as possible could participate in that process. Having a robust amendment process, especially on legislation of major consequence, is how the Senate has traditionally operated. It is something that has been sorely lacking for the last several years. And it is something that, when it has occurred, has invariably led to legislative achievement. It is for the purpose of strengthening the right to amend legislation that we helped draft the new procedure of a majority motion to proceed. If the majority instead begins to use this procedure to limit the minority to just two amendments before seeking to bring consideration of a bill to a close, then we would view that as an abuse of this procedure. It would break faith with us who worked in good faith. Under those circumstances, we would oppose cloture on the bill and would urge that our colleagues do the same.

Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to follow Senator Mikulski.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland as always for her usual courtesy, and I think she had a very important message. I appreciate not only the words themselves but her eloquence and passion.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from South Carolina be included in a colloquy during my remarks.

Mr. President, I, as I believe all of us have, just finished watching the President's remarks at--I guess it was the Executive Office Building. I am not sure yet, as I sort out my impressions of the President's remarks, whether to be angry or to be saddened.

I have been around this town for a number of years, and as is well known, I had more than an academic interest in the Presidency. I have watched a lot of Presidents, going back to President Reagan, from the standpoint of being a Member of Congress, and I have seen these other crises as we have gone through them--whether it was the potential shutdown of the government when Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House, or the crisis of the debt limit expiring, and a number of others. It is sometimes, unfortunately, the way we do business here.

But I must say, at a time of crisis, on New Year's Eve, when at midnight, at least, certain actions will take place or have to be planned to take place, today we had the President of the United States having a cheerleading, ridiculing-of-Republicans exercise in speaking to the people of the United States of America. As I have watched other Presidents address crises, the way they were able to address them and resolve them--with Presidential leadership, and that is why we elect Presidents, to lead--was by calling the leaders of both parties to the White House to sit around the table and do the negotiations and the discussions.

Sometimes concessions have to be made; compromises have to be made. But what did the President of the United States just do? He kind of made funny--he made a couple of jokes, laughed about how people are going to be here for New Year's Eve, and then sent a message of confrontation to the Republicans. I believe he said: If they think they are going to do that, then they have another thought coming.

I guess I have to wonder--and I think the American people have to wonder--whether the President wants this issue resolved or is it to his short-term political benefit for us to go over the cliff. I can assure the President of the United States that historians judge Presidents by their achievements.

Now, we all read the polls. We, Republicans, know what is in the polls; that is, the majority of the American people--50-some percent-- support and approve of this President. We also see the approval ratings of Congress--10, 11, 12, 9, 15 percent, whatever it is. I haven't seen one that high lately. But historians judge Presidents by what happens on their watch, and this President just made comments which clearly-- clearly--will antagonize Members of the House. We are a bicameral government. His comments will clearly antagonize them, and once we get an agreement--and I appreciate that negotiations have been going on in the Senate between the majority leader and the Republican leader-- whatever is done and whatever is agreed to has to be ratified by the House of Representatives, men and women who were elected on promising their constituents they wouldn't raise taxes.

Now, whether they should have made that commitment or not, whether that was the right thing to do, the fact is that is what they said. So the President basically, in his talk to whatever group of people he was talking to--who were laughing and cheering and applauding as we are on the brink of this collapse, of the incredible problem this creates for men and women all over, all of our citizens--said to the Republicans on both sides of the aisle, but particularly the House of Representatives: Take it or leave it. That is not the way Presidents should lead. These are draconian effects.

Now, whether we should be at this cliff is a discussion for scholars in years to come, but we are where we are. Frantic discussions are going on. They went on into the middle of the night last night. So what is the President of the United States doing? In the middle of this, as, hopefully, they were reaching an agreement--and I understand there was only one major issue remaining--he comes out and calls people together and has a group standing behind him while he laughs and jokes and ridicules Republicans. Why? Why would the President of the United States want to do that?

I want to say a word about sequestration. Now, sequestration is about to kick in. The Pentagon and our Defense Department are like a giant oil tanker. We have to turn it around in a very difficult and slow manner because they have to make plans, and they have to have contingencies. They have to have procurement of weapons, and we have to do all the things that are necessary to make sure our men and women who are serving in the military are the best trained, the best equipped, and most professional in the world--and they are. But when we look at sequestration, the Secretary of Defense says it will decimate our ability to defend this Nation.

Shouldn't the President be concerned about that, about what his own Secretary of Defense is saying and what his own selection of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is saying? Instead, he kind of jokes around and tells people they are going to be here for New Year's Eve. That is not the way to lead this Nation.

So I come to the floor and say to my colleagues, we need to get this done. We all know we need to get this done. If we go over the cliff, we are going to disappoint the people we are elected to represent, and we will disappoint them mightily, as we already have. But I also say it is the time for Presidential leadership. It is time to stop the cheerleading; it is time to stop the campaigning. The President won. We all know that. He won fair and square. Isn't it now time to govern? Isn't the best way to govern to sit down with people from the other party and from both Houses and say this is an issue we must resolve for the good of the American people?

So I hope, again, the President will spend some time with the leaders of both parties in the Oval Office sitting down and ironing this out before the people of this country pay a very heavy price.

Now, my friend from South Carolina was around when we almost went over the cliff the last time, as we were about to shut down the government, and there were all kinds of consequences. But we pulled back from the brink, after almost going over it, and it was the most serious of all these that I have seen. I guess I would ask him, is it not true, in our experience, that Presidents, whether they be Republican or Democrat, no matter what party or affiliation, going back to the famous Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill relationship, where they sat down together and they saved Social Security for about 25 years-- and it was tough medicine, but they did it together. The President of the United States basically dismissed Social Security and Medicare from his list of priorities.

As my friend from Tennessee pointed out, we have a $16 trillion debt. For us to say we are not going to do anything about spending when we all know that spending is the biggest problem we have in this agreement--again, that is

throwing kerosene on the fire that is on the other side of the Capitol, and that is my Republican colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have committed and pledged to their constituents that we will end this hemorrhaging that we call spending which has given us the greatest debt in the history of this country.

So I guess I would ask my colleague from South Carolina, who is usually very modest and reticent in explaining his views, particularly in various media outlets, what is his view on this situation.

I would say to my friend, first of all, we have had some meetings of a bipartisan fashion to try and improve the process so that we can move legislation forward.

I believe the issue before us right now--at nearly 3 p.m., 9 hours from midnight and we still have not reached an agreement--and the longer it takes for us to reach agreement, the less time we will have examining it and the less time we will have before voting on it. As the Senator from South Carolina said: We can't keep doing business like this. And we can't.

But on this particular issue, I want to express, as I began, my disappointment in the President in having a cheerleading rally when we should be sitting down together and resolving this issue. That is what I have seen other Presidents, Republican and Democrat, do.

I hope, now that the President has made his statement with his cheering section, that now he would sit down--as Presidents have and should--and work to hammer out this agreement and agreements in the future.

The Presidential campaign is over. He won. Congratulations. Now let's get down to the serious business of governing this country in a bipartisan fashion.

I yield to the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. President, I yield the floor for the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his deeply moving and heartfelt sentiments concerning our dear and departed comrade, Senator Inouye, a unique man. Never will the Senate of the United States of America see his like again.

I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his very important and moving tribute.

Amendment No. 3355

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up pending amendment No. 3355.

Mr. President, I thank the manager of the bill for her patience during this difficult time of many amendments and other priorities. I thank her for her patience and her courtesy as well as our Republican manager, the Senator from Mississippi.

This amendment is very minor in nature when we look at a $60 billion piece of legislation. But I think it has a certain amount of symbolism associated with it, which is why I bring it up, symbolism we all want to respond to an emergency and a tragedy such as befell the people of the Northeast as a result of this terrible hurricane and ongoing tragedies that continue. Our hearts go out to them. It is clearly an obligation of the Congress and President to do whatever is necessary to provide what comfort and relief we can to them. It is one of the obligations of government we all recognize.

But also, over the years, I have seen the tendency as one of these things happens, as they do from time to time, tragically, that we have a tendency to put money in things we otherwise would not get so easily or funds for programs that have nothing to do with addressing the tragedy or just an excess of funds in an act of generosity on the part of the Congress of the United States. That might be OK--might be OK under certain circumstances, but we have a $16 trillion debt. To appropriate more money without adequate justification for doing so is something that, sooner or later, we will have to stop.

I guess it was Margaret Thatcher who once said the problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money. My friends and colleagues, sooner or later we are going to run out of other people's money because they are going to stop lending it to us because we have a $16 trillion debt. Even though this is a relatively minor item, I think it is kind of symbolic of what we do around here. It is concerning the $58 million we are going to spend for the Department of Agriculture Forest Restoration Program for planting trees on private property.

Let me make that clear. We are going to spend $58 million for planting trees on private property. This amendment would strike that provision. This tree planting program called the Forest Restoration Program is actually a farm bill subsidy that was created in 2008. It is run by a relatively unknown government office called the Farm Service Agency, whatever that is, which was primarily responsible for

managing crop insurance in rural counties. Under the program, ``nonindustrial private forest landowners'' can apply for up to $500,000 for a range of forest restoration activities, including tree planting.

Why is that the role of the Federal Government? Why is it the role of the Federal Government to pay for trees to be planted on private property, much less funded in a bill to repair the damage done by a hurricane.

There is nothing in the supplemental that limits the funding to just Hurricane Sandy. Under this bill, the $58 million can be used anywhere. According to the U.S. Forest Service, approximately 45 percent of all forest land in the United States qualifies as ``nonindustrial private forestland.'' These lands are owned by approximately 11 million landowners, many of whom have holdings of fewer than 50 acres on average.

We know this program has cash. It received $11 million from Congress in 2010. It received an additional $28 million in the 2011 Omnibus Appropriations Act, more than doubling the program.

The Senate is proposing to double this subsidy again to $58 million. We know from the U.S. Department of Agriculture records the majority of funding has been used in past years for wind damaged trees in Mississippi, Georgia, and Tennessee. There remains an unobligated $15 million in the program's account.

I say to my colleagues, $58 million here, $58 million there, sooner or later it runs into real money. In fact, it runs into a $16 trillion debt. I come from a State, I say, Mr. President, where we love trees. We have not enough of them. In some parts of our State we have a lot of them. In some parts of our State it is kind of bleak--but beautiful. But I am not asking for any money for private owners in my State to plant trees. I think they can do that themselves.

Again, it is only $58 million. Maybe I am taking up the time of the Senate when we are talking about $60 billion, but it is an example, an outstanding example, of the kind of excess that does not have the priority to spend another $58 million of the taxpayers' money.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as we debate the Hurricane Sandy Supplemental bill this week, it is critical that we ensure taxpayer dollars go to help those impacted by this devastating storm and not toward spending projects that are wasteful or not a priority at this time. This bill, unfortunately, goes way beyond emergency aid and funds projects that have little or nothing to do with meeting the immediate needs of individuals misplaced by Hurricane Sandy. At a time when we face ongoing trillion-dollar deficits, and a $16.3 trillion debt, we cannot justify this type of spending.

While some of the projects included in this bill may hold merit on their own, they should go through the normal budget and appropriations process, where Congress has time to vet the need for such spending requests.

To highlight this point, the Congressional Budget Office--CBO-- examined both the Senate bill and the administration's request and found that that 64 percent of the funds appropriated under the Sandy Supplemental will not be spent until fiscal years 2015-2022 and after, therefore, raising concerns about the rush to spend $60.4 billion without any attempt to pay for it.

Just two weeks ago, FEMA Director Fugate told the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that the Disaster Relief Fund currently has enough money and will not need additional funding until the spring 2013. CBO's assessment, combined with the statement of Director Fugate clearly shows us that we need to pass a Sandy Supplemental bill that only includes prioritized disaster aid funding.

As I have examined this bill over this week, I have found numerous examples of questionable spending including billions to replace `Federal assets' damaged by the storm, including automobiles owned by the Federal Government. The Federal Government currently owns or leases over 660,000 vehicles--surely we can find replacements within our current inventory.

Shouldn't we focus on providing relief directly to those still trying to rebuild their lives before replacing a bureaucrat's car?

The new substitute also includes language expanding levee construction to include West North Central States, such as North Dakota. It also includes $2 million to repair damage to the roofs of museums in Washington, D.C., while many in Hurricane Sandy's path still have no permanent roof over their own heads, $150 million for fisheries as far away from the storm's path as Mississippi and Alaska, $125 million for the Department of Agriculture's Emergency Watershed Protection program, which helps restore watersheds damaged by wildfires and droughts for areas including Colorado, $15 million for NASA facilities, though NASA itself has called its damage from the hurricane `minimal.' On the day after the storm hit, NASA's Wallops Island put out a statement stating that ``an initial assessment team surveyed roads and facilities at NASA's Wallops Flight Facility today reporting a number of downed trees but otherwise minimal impact in the wake of Hurricane Sandy.'' To me, this raises a red flag that this NASA funding may not be an immediate emergency.

There is $58 million for the USDA ``Forest Restoration Program'' for planting trees on private property. This program is actually a Farm Bill subsidy program that's run by a relatively unknown agency called the ``Farm Service Administration,'' which is primarily responsible for managing crop insurance. Under this program, private landowners with about 50 acres of land can apply for up to $500,000 in free grants for tree planting activities. Not only is this a non-emergency need, there's nothing in the supplemental that limits the funding to Hurricane Sandy areas. Under this bill, this $58 million can be used just about anywhere.

There is $336 million for taxpayer-supported AMTRAK without a detailed plan for how the money will be spent. While some of the funding will go for repairs, money will also go to increasing passenger capacity to New York and future mitigation efforts. In a two page letter from AMTRAK that gives a broad description of how the $336 million will be spent, almost all of it falls under funding for improvements and future capital projects. This includes $191 million for AMTRAK to start design and construction of new Hudson River Tunnels, as part of the Gateway Program. According to AMTRAK, the Gateway Program, which was started in 2011 and is projected to cost over $13 billion, is ``a comprehensive program of infrastructure improvements to increase track, tunnel, bridge, and station capacity serving New York City that will improve current assets and allow the eventual doubling of passenger trains into Manhattan.'' I am not here to debate the merits or the need for new tunnels, but this is clearly a capital improvement project--unrelated to Hurricane Sandy. AMTRAK is up and running so it is not apparent why this funding is deemed ``emergency'' spending and included in this spending package. Keep in mind, AMTRAK receives roughly $1 billion in annual funding. Future mitigation projects should be debated in next year's budget process.

There is $5.3 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers--more than the Army Corps' annual budget--with little clarity on how the money will be spent. Included in the Senate bill is $50 million in funding for more studies, which will most definitely lead to additional Army Corp projects and a new Task Force established by Executive Order.

More projects are not something the Army Corps can handle. They are currently experiencing a backlog of construction and maintenance projects of approximately $70 billion. Furthermore, a 2010 report released by the Government Accountability Office noted that carryover funds have increased ``due to the large amount of supplemental funding the Corps has received in recent years.'' Clearly, supplemental spending on the Army Corps has not paid off. There is $10 million improve weather forecasting capabilities and infrastructure. The bill also includes roughly $13 billion for future disaster mitigation activities and studies, without identifying a single way to pay for it. While I understand that Mitigation is important to save money when future natural disasters occur, there is no justification to include these projects in this ``emergency'' spending bill. By waiting to fund these projects until next year during the normal budget and appropriations process, we will have a better understanding of the path forward and reduce the possibility of waste fraud and abuse.

As a nation, we are confronted with trillion dollar deficits, out of control spending in Washington and the imminent approach of an economically, devastating fiscal cliff. We do need to come to the aid of those who lost everything in Hurricane Sandy and are struggling to get their lives back together. Congress, however, cannot continue down this road of irresponsible spending. We must pass a true disaster spending bill that only spends money on disaster recovery and response, not pet projects.

Mr. President, I note the presence of the Senator from Kentucky on the floor. I understand he seeks recognition for 10 minutes, and I ask that he be recognized at this time.

Will the Senator yield for a question, briefly?

Under the scenario as envisioned by the argument made by the Senator from Kentucky that if an American citizen is overseas, as al-Awlaki was in Yemen, and we took a drone and killed him, which was a decision made by the President of the United States----

But if al-Awlaki had been in the United States of America, a citizen engaged in the same activities that justified him being killed, then Mr. al-Awlaki would have been entitled to his Miranda rights, a trial by jury, habeas corpus, all that as if he were treated as an American citizen. I don't think many people would quite understand that distinction of geography.

If the Senator will yield further, there is every indication in the Middle East and around the world that we see that al- Qaida is on the way back, far from being defeated.

I just wish to make an additional comment to my friend, Senator Levin, the chairman, whom I have had the honor of bringing these bills to the floor with and working together with for 25 years. I was tempted to leave it unresponded to, but a statement the Senator from Kentucky made: They were sneakier than we were--I have to say to the chairman, I don't think the chairman has ever conducted our committee and our deliberations and our work on the floor and in conference in any way as being sneaky. I categorically reject that kind of comment, and I don't think it is worthy of the performance the Senator from Michigan has provided to this committee.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arkansas for his enormous contributions to the deliberations and work of our committee. I understand the frustration he feels, and we have promised, as Senator Levin and I have promised a number of Members on both sides of the Capitol, we will have extensive hearings on this whole issue of Guard- Air Force relationships and force structure for the 21st century. We appreciate his commitment to his outstanding members of the Guard.

Mr. President, I rise to support the fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act conference report. This will be the 51st consecutive year the Congress will pass legislation authorizing the budget of the Department of Defense and supporting our men and women in uniform.

I thank the members of the Armed Services Committee for their hard work, especially my colleague and friend, Senator Carl Levin. Carl and I have worked together for many years on this committee, the last 6 as chairman and ranking member. In that time, Carl has demonstrated a thoughtful approach to defense oversight and legislating. His genial disposition--which I believe complements my own temperament well--masks resolute support for a strong national defense and a tenacious will ensure that defense dollars are wisely spent. Carl, you are a trusted partner and a patriot.

This conference report is the product of 10 months of legislative effort, including 53 hearings on the full range of national security priorities. After marking up the President's defense budget request in May, the committee unanimously reported a bill to the Senate on June 4. Six months to the day later, the full Senate passed the bill 98 to 0. In a hopeful sign of the return of regular order to the Chamber, we passed the bill after 33 hours of debate and an open process that resulted in 397 amendments filed, of which 143 were included in the Senate-passed bill.

Our use of an open amendment process on the Senate floor demonstrated that when it comes to addressing national defense, the Senate can still work together in a bipartisan manner. However, before we engage in too much self-congratulation, we should ask ourselves why we are concluding the most important annual authorization bill 3 months after the fiscal year began, and why we have yet to enact a single appropriations bill for any Department or agency of government. The Congress has been caught in so many political impasses of late that we have effectively abrogated our responsibility to provide for the timely authorization and appropriation of Federal programs. The result is increased cost, decreased efficiency, and our willful enabling of dysfunction in government. We can and must do better.

The Defense authorization conference report before the Senate provides for the continued readiness of our Armed Forces and the well- being of servicemembers and their families. It authorizes pay and benefits, research and development, weapons procurement, and military construction projects, and contains provisions designed to improve acquisition and contracting. It also provides the resources, training, equipment, and authorities necessary for our military to continue supporting the Afghanistan National Security Forces as they assume increased responsibility throughout Afghanistan.

This conference report also contains tough sanctions aimed at curbing Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon. Iran continues its reckless ways in pursuit of a nuclear weapon. Just recently, the IAEA confirmed that Iran is expected to double the number of centrifuges at its underground enrichment site to 1,400. One provision in this report, originally sponsored by Senators Kirk and Menendez, designates Iran's energy, shipping, and ship-building sectors as entities of proliferation concern, subjecting many transactions with these entities to sanction. It would impose sanctions on persons supplying to Iran certain listed materials relevant to these sectors, to certain Iranian Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons, or to be used in connection with certain Iranian military programs. Finally, it would designate the Iranian state broadcasting company as a human rights abuser for airing forced confessions and show trials; preventing other entities from doing business with it; and banning any travel to the United States.

This conference report also contains a provision that authorizes an increase of up to 1,000 marines for the Marine Corps Embassy Security Group. The tragic events in Benghazi on September 11 demonstrate that the security environment facing our diplomatic corps is as dangerous as ever. This provision will provide for the end-strength and resources necessary to support an increase in Marine Corps security at locations identified by the Secretary of State to be at risk of terrorist attack. Such an increase was also recommended by the Accountability Review Board--the independent panel convened by Secretary Clinton to investigate the events surrounding the Benghazi attack.

The murder of innocents continues in Syria, with over 40,000 people murdered by the Assad regime. This conference report contains a provision that requires the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to submit a comprehensive report identifying the limited military activities that could deny or degrade the ability of the Assad regime to use air power against civilians and opposition groups. This provision explicitly notes that it neither authorizes the use of military force nor serves as a declaration of war against Syria.

In the area of military personnel, the conference report provides a 1.7-percent pay raise for servicemembers, and over 30 types of incentives aimed at strengthening enlistment and retention programs. It reinforces Department of Defense programs to prevent sexual assault and will improve the care and management of wounded warriors and those transitioning to civilian life after military service.

The report also recognizes that, in an era of fiscal austerity, the Department of Defense must reduce costs wherever possible, including force structure by, for example, approving nearly all of the fiscal year 2013 increment of the President's proposed reduction of 123,900 military personnel over the next 5 years. But it also requires a similar reduction in civilian and contractor personnel over that same time period.

In addition, the report acknowledges a revised plan by the Air Force to reduce its force structure and retire or divest military aircraft in order to respond to defense budget cuts proposed by the administration. While my State of Arizona fared better than many States, the Air Force's plan includes a cost-saving proposal to convert the manning of an A-10 Warthog training

squadron based at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson from the active component to the Reserve, resulting in a decrease of approximately 130 personnel assigned to the base. I support the need for the military services to find ways to reduce costs and realize that we all will have to bear the burden of the impact of reduced defense spending.

Despite modest improvements in recent defense acquisitions, the Department has much work to do to improve its ability to identify and reduce waste. This conference report contains a number of provisions intended to improve oversight on defense contracting, including helping to detect and prevent human trafficking in government contracting. There are also provisions that would help ensure that the Department becomes fully auditable by 2017, as required under law, while improving procurement of the business systems it needs to become auditable. Other provisions help reform how the Federal Government conducts procurement during contingency operations and help ensure that certain whistleblowers who identify waste, fraud, and abuse are protected. The conference report also increases transparency into shipbuilding programs, including Ford Class aircraft carriers and Littoral Combat Ships.

Another important provision in this report addresses cybersecurity, by requiring consultation with Congress if a decision is made to establish U.S. Cyber Command as a unified command and that defense contractors notify the Department of Defense of any network intrusions.

Still another provision in the report requires that, following a decision by the President to reduce U.S. forces in Afghanistan, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff submit to Congress his assessment of the risk of that force reduction to our mission and security interests.

This report also requires the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress a report on the investment plan and resources needed to carry out the U.S. strategy in Asia. I remain uncertain that the Department's plan for the realignment of U.S. military forces in the Asia Pacific Region is adequately supported by budgets and resources in future years. The Center for Strategic and International Studies released a report in August 2012 that raised concerns about whether the plans and strategy proposed by the Department earlier this year are adequately supported by budgets and resources in future years.

Another provision helps protect the Navy's rich tradition of vessel naming. The name the Navy selects for a vessel should not be tarnished in any way by controversy. Unfortunately, controversy has surrounded some of the Navy's recent vessel-naming choices. This bill, therefore, sets forth appropriate and necessary standards, grounded in historical practice, to guide the Secretary of the Navy's decisions on future vessel naming, and requires that the Secretary seek the approval of the congressional defense committees before announcing or assigning a vessel's name.

A particularly important provision gives priority to the Forest Service and Coast Guard to acquire surplus Air Force aircraft, allowing the Forest Service to strengthen its fire suppression capability.

This conference report also directs the Secretary of Defense to designate assignment of military officers as instructors on the faculty of West Point, the Naval Academy or the Air Force Academy as the equivalent of a joint duty assignment to satisfy joint duty requirements.

Finally, this report extends for another year important prohibitions and restrictions on the transfer and release of military detainees from Guantanamo, and the construction or modification of facilities in the U.S. to house them. It also establishes congressional notification requirements for military detainees held on naval vessels and for the release of third-country nationals held in military detention in Afghanistan. In addition, it clearly affirms that nothing in last year's defense authorization bill or the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force restricts or denies a person's existing habeas corpus rights or any other constitutional right.

As we look forward to Christmas, I remind my fellow Members to remember the beneficiaries of this legislation--the men and women of our Armed Forces, who serve our Nation bravely and selflessly. Passing this conference report is the very least we can do for so many who are willing to give all they have to defend our Nation.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the conference report of the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act.

Finally, I would like to thank the ``small but mighty'' Senate Armed Services Committee Republican staff, who have worked tirelessly and effectively in support of me and our members. These loyal staff members, many of whom have served on the committee staff for many years, deserve our sincere appreciation for their dedication to national security. They are Adam Barker, Pablo Carrillo, Chris Brose, Lauren Davis, Church Hutton, Daniel Lerner, Greg Lilly, Elizabeth Lopez, Lucian Niemeyer, Bryan Parker, Ann Elise Sauer, and Diana Tabler.

Mr. President, again, with great reluctance, I thank our staff who have done such a wonderful job. They really have done great. As I say, I am very reluctant to admit it, but we could not have gotten here without their hard work on both sides of the aisle.

Alternative Fuels

Mr. President, I yield the remainder of our time.

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