Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I will first acknowledge that at 11:15 tonight we are going to be voting on the National Defense Authorization Act. It is a must-pass bill, one which has passed prior to December 31 every year for the last 53 years. So it is very significant, and I think people are tired of hearing about it because they recognize the significance and the fact that it has to be done. So I am not going to say anything about that. I originally came down to talk about the problems we are having in my State of Oklahoma. I have a long list of people from all throughout the State who have talked about their insurance being cancelled, the increase in the deductibles and the cost of insurance, and about the crisis we are facing in the State of Oklahoma with ObamaCare. Madam President, I will mention one thing which has been overlooked in this debate and which I have mentioned once before but a lot of people have not recognized, and this has come from the leaders on the Democrat side, including the President of the United States; that is, the ultimate goal of ObamaCare would be a single-payer system. A single-payer system is socialized medicine. It is kind of interesting. I remember when we had Hillary health care back in the early 1990s, and we asked the question, if it doesn't work in Denmark, it doesn't work in Sweden, it doesn't work in Canada, it doesn't work in the U.K., why would it work here? They never said it, but they were thinking: If I were running it, it would work here. So that is the ultimate goal. I will share a personal experience, and then I will yield to the rest of the Members who wish to talk about their States. I had a personal experience 2 months ago. I went in for a colonoscopy, just a routine thing. After checking me and going through, they said: I have good news and bad news. I said: All right. What is it? The good news is your colon is fine. The bad news is you are about to die because you have 100 percent obstruction in two valves, 90 percent in two arteries and 75 percent in the other arteries. So I had as an emergency four bypasses at that moment. I say that because if I had been in the U.K., at my age there would be a mandatory 6-month waiting period and I wouldn't be standing here today. If I had been in Canada, it is like 2 years. And I have heard our good friends, the doctors who are Members of the Senate, such as Senator Barrasso, talking about what is happening in these other countries. A few minutes ago I was visiting with Jackie Davidson, who is scheduled for open heart surgery on Monday. I was talking about, quite frankly, how it was much easier than I thought it was going to be. And the same thing happened with my wife. But the point is that if you are in these countries, at a certain age it doesn't work. You are denied the opportunity to have surgery. So that needs to be in the back of our minds as we talk about the current problems we are having with ObamaCare and what the ultimate goal is. Lastly, I will say I have been contacted by two of my good friends who are members of Parliament in the U.K., and they asked me this question: Why is it you and your country are now trying to adopt something that we are trying to get away from over here in the U.K.? So let's keep in mind there is one big overriding problem that, if we cave in now, we will be reaching. With that, I yield to my colleagues who wish to speak.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first, I wish to say the same thing. It sounds as though it is all rehearsed, but it is not. It is actually a reality that I have always felt I could call and talk to the chairman about things we might not have in common--although I can only remember one issue where we were on opposite sides, but we have our reasons for being on opposite sides. Unless we work those out, then between John Bonsell and Peter, it is always a joy to be able to call and know I am reaching the top and we are going to be able to come up with a decision. I talked to a lot of the Republicans who voted against this, and I want the chairman to be aware of this. I think almost all of them who voted against it voted that way for one reason; that is, the process. They wanted to have amendments. They are entitled to amendments. I think we said that over the last 10 years we have averaged 9 days of debate on this most significant bill each year. That is an average. We have had about 100 amendments on average. So that is something both the chairman and I agree should have happened, but it just didn't happen. We can't really blame one side more than the other. Then, of course, when the nuclear option came, that got things pretty hostile here, and unfortunately what suffered was our bill. I feel strongly that we have a good bill. In fact, a lot of people don't know how this process works when we cannot get a bill through the House and/or the Senate to make it a reality, and I had to go through this one year when I was on the House Armed Services Committee. Then they had the big four; that is, the chairman and the ranking member of the Senate and the chairman and the ranking member of the House, get together and put this together. That may not be the process--in fact, it is not the process we wanted--but the choice became, do we have a bill or do we not have a bill, and we have gotten down to that choice. What I tried to do, and I failed--I am embarrassed to say I failed with many of our Republicans in explaining to them what would happen if we don't have a bill. I started writing what the chairman talked about that is in this bill, and I couldn't keep up. He was too fast. But I would like to mention a couple of things that I think perhaps were not mentioned. Of course, we did cover Gitmo, and I look at it just a little bit differently than the chairman does. I like the restoration of the 1- year prohibition on the transferring of the detainees to the United States. That was a 12-month provision we had last time that we tried to get in, and we actually addressed this in our bill. But in this bill-- the substitute bill we just voted on--I think it is very important and something I feel very strongly about. On the sexual assault, we had both Senators McCaskill and Gillibrand, and I recall both of them saying: Well, this isn't everything I wanted. But they both thought it sure was a lot better than not having a bill. So I think we have done a good job there. I always pick out one area that shows how much this would cost. If we look at the CVN-78--75 percent finished right now, $12 billion spent on it now--and if we didn't have this bill, I am sure we would try to do something, but work would stop, and people would be laid off. It would have then cost a lot more to wind things up and get back into it. When I say ``a lot more,'' we are talking about millions of dollars more. So that is one of the great victories we have. The one aspect so many of my constituents are concerned about that I think needs to be called to everyone's attention that is in this bill is the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty. I remember back when we had the bill that didn't ultimately pass, but we had an all-night session, and at 5 o'clock in the morning I passed my amendment that would preclude us from getting involved in that treaty. This was after our Secretary of State had already signed this treaty. We had 53 votes. We had all the Republicans and six of the Democrats vote in favor of that. That didn't pass, but it is very important that we address that, not just to protect Second Amendment rights but also to protect our ability to help our allies without having to go through the United Nations. And we have that provision in here, which is very significant. On the BRAC, BRAC is controversial. I was opposed to the last BRAC round. My feeling at that time was that we were getting the force structure down artificially low, and I didn't feel comfortable bringing down the infrastructure to meet that because I was hoping we would be able to--that is the same reason I would not want to have a BRAC round right now. We have never been in such a critical fiscal condition in supporting our military as we are today. One thing that is certain about BRAC rounds is that we can debate about how much ultimately they will save, but everybody knows what it costs in the first 5 years, and these are the first 5 years that we really can't afford it, particularly the first year. The last thing I would mention is something I felt more strongly about than I think most of the rest of them did, and that is how much we have spent on these drop-in fuels, the biofuels, and we have language here that would say we would not do it unless they are cost- competitive. That is a huge issue to me personally. The last two I would like to mention--people say in my conference, a lot of them are saying: Well, what is going to happen on December 31 if we don't pass the bill? I have a long list of expirations here that I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record. I will only mention three of them. One is on the aviation officer retention bonus. I think we all know and most of us believe that we made a mistake in April when we shut down some of our squadrons and about a third of our fighter squadrons for a period of about 3 months. General Walsh presented a very persuasive case that it costs a lot more to get them back to current, as we started to do in July, than the money that was saved during the time they were down. I think we lost a lot of aviators at that time because they were grounded, they weren't flying, and they just decided they would go into the private sector. If we take away the aviation officer retention bonus, that is going to accelerate the lost number of people who would otherwise stay in the military. That would have gone away on the 31st of December. I don't know how many of the aviators we would lose, but I do know this: It is a $25,000 bonus, and the difference between retraining and retaining is huge. We can retain them, if the bonus would influence them, for $25,000, but retraining, to get to the optimum--the first level being the F-22--is about $7.5 million, but there is another $9 million to get to the top proficiency. That means $17 million as opposed to $25,000. So I think we need to in the future always keep track of retraining and retaining. The health care professional bonus would end on December 31. Why is that important? Because a lot of these people who are taking care of our wounded warriors--not just at the hospitals but also after they leave--have special pay to take care of our wounded warriors, those who have made the sacrifices, and that would have ended on December 31. The reenlistment bonus for Active members would also end. I remember from my military days that when people were getting ready to leave, they looked at the bonus, and that is there to encourage them to stay. So it is not just aviators; it is the ground guys and gals too. So we have done a lot. I really appreciate that opportunity. The last thing I will say--and I will ask my staff to put up the picture--this is my appeal to the minority leader and the majority leader. We could play the game and extend this and be here until midnight, I guess, on Thursday night. It happens that tomorrow is my 54th wedding anniversary, and I would really like to ask both the majority and the minority if we couldn't yield back a little bit of time. We know we are going to have the votes for this. I would sure like help. Those 20 kids and grandkids are waiting for me for a big dinner on our 54th wedding anniversary tomorrow night. So have mercy, give us a break, and let's try to get this voted on and go home. And Merry Christmas to everybody.

Mr. INHOFE. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Oh, you will make it.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire, the chair of the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support, for her question. I am a strong supporter of energy performance contracts that provide maximum savings for the Federal Government. It is my understanding that the components of the Department of Defense have identified additional opportunities for energy conservation and energy demand management that could benefit from performance contracting, However, in order to maximize taxpayer savings, it is vital that DoD contract for those projects that provide the greatest return on investment as opposed to directing the use of certain mandated energy sources without an assessment of relative costs over the life cycle of the project. I join with the Senator from New Hampshire to strongly encourage the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the military departments to increase the use and streamline the administration of energy savings performance and utility energy savings contracting vehicles that will incorporate the most efficient and effective energy systems in order to maximize the reduction of operational costs, to conserve energy resources, and to improve the efficiency of building systems. I hope my colleague will join with me as part of our oversight responsibilities for the committee that we ensure energy performance contracts carried out by the Department of Defense meet the intent of the President's executive order of December 2011 to maximize cost reductions for the Federal Government by promoting projects to offer the greatest return on investment.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, first of all, my good friend from South Carolina is a mind reader. He always looks at you and figures out what you are going to say and then he says it better. There are a couple of things that haven't been said during this discussion, and I want to mention them, and then I know we are going to vote. One is that our military was told--and I talked to several of the groups, the military retiring groups and others--that they would be grandfathered in. Now, I want everyone grandfathered in if we are going to do something like this. Certainly, in one installation in my State of Oklahoma, we have 13,000 civilian employees who are going to be grandfathered in, and I want them to be grandfathered in. That is the right thing to do. People make career decisions predicated on what they are told at the time. And these military guys--and I look around the room and most of the Senators who are in here have spent a lot of time, as I have, in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we talk to these guys in the mess hall, and they talk about how they happened to get in. They make these decisions, and then we come along and take it away. I think it has been said enough, the example of the gunnery sergeant at age 42, having been in for 20 years, and it is going to cost him some $72,000, but not much is said about the officers. For the officers, it is actually a lot more than that. An O-5 officer at that agency under the same circumstances would lose $124,000. These are not wealthy people; these are people who depend upon this for their retirement. They were told, as I mentioned, that they also--the military people-- would be grandfathered in. Now, anytime one is grandfathered in, then obviously they change the rules and the new people making a career decision will make it predicated on those circumstances of retirement that are there at that time. I have to say this: Tomorrow we are going to be involved in the bill that was put together by the big four. It is the NDAA. It is a must- pass bill. We will pass it. I can't imagine there won't be the votes to pass it. But I can tell my colleagues this: If we had known this was going to come up, we would have addressed this in the NDAA. This is something that could have been addressed and could have been offset. So I agree with everyone who has spoken on this issue. I think it is very difficult to understand how this could happen. We do know this: One of the differences between civilian employees and military employees is that we can't recall civilian employees. We have a figure here. Are my colleagues aware that we actually have, since September 11, 3,456 military retirees who have been recalled to duty? Every one of them is going to be affected by this. This is a travesty we cannot allow to happen. I applaud my friend from Alabama for bringing this up, and hopefully we will be able to correct it. We are going to have a vote right now, and I hope this is a solution to it. Then tomorrow we will have a chance to get into the details about the NDAA bill, which is a very significant bill that addresses provisions such as this. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to announce the reintroduction of a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code to eliminate the taxable income limit on percentage depletion for oil and natural gas produced from marginal properties. Since 1926 small producers and millions of royalty owners have had the option to utilize percentage depletion to both simplify their accounting methodology and to account for the decline in the value of minerals produced from a property. Percentage depletion is particularly important to America's 700,000 low-volume marginal wells. The average marginal well produces barely 2 barrels per day, yet cumulatively they account for nearly 28 percent of domestic production in the lower 48 states. Since every on-shore natural gas and oil well eventually declines into marginal production, the economic life span and corresponding production of all wells is extended by allowing the use of percentage depletion. Until 1998, the deduction marginal producers could take from percentage depletion was limited to 100 percent of taxable income from each individual property. Many producers, however, specialize in marginally producing wells and have many properties operating simultaneously. Naturally, some wells in a producer's portfolio are more productive than others. Some would have depletion rates greater than 100 percent of taxable income, while others would have depletion rates lower than the limit. Removing the taxable income limitation allows producers to take percentage depletion deductions on a portfolio-wide basis, which makes their entire operation more economical. Since 1998, Congress has understood this fact and has suspended the limitation. Unfortunately, the provision has never been made permanent. It has just been extended year after year as part of the Tax Extenders Package. Since we have had this suspension on the books for more than a decade, I think it is time to give producers the predictability they need by making this common sense tax accounting provision permanent. At a time when our unemployment rate remains over 7 percent, we need to be doing everything we can to encourage economic growth. The energy industry is a major contributor to our economy, and it has a lot of room to grow. The Congressional Research Service released a report that says the United States has the most energy potential under its soil than any other country on earth. Hiding beneath our soil are jobs, wealth, and lower deficits. We should allow this sector to grow. This is a common sense, easy way to do this, so I urge swift passage.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to bring to your attention a bill I am reintroducing that would make permanent the current tax provision that allows capital assets on Indian lands to be depreciated on an accelerated schedule. For many years, the Federal tax code has provided an incentive for businesses to invest in operations on Indian reservations and lands across the country. According to the law, businesses that purchase capital equipment and use it on Indian lands will be able to depreciate it, on average, more than 40 percent faster than would otherwise be allowed. This tax provision is important to Oklahoma because of our longstanding history and unique relationship with Indian tribes. With our sluggish economy, we need to do all we can to encourage businesses to reinvest in and expand their operations, as this will create sustainable job growth. The accelerated depreciation schedule gives businesses the opportunity to recover investment dollars in capital assets more rapidly. This frees money that would have been tied up in the value of their capital assets, such as buildings, equipment, and machinery and enables companies to reinvest it more quickly than was available with a slower depreciation schedule. The Oklahoma Department of Commerce has reported that many companies attribute this provision as a key reason for relocating to and expanding within the State. One Oklahoma food processing plant manager stated that the credit was a significant factor in the company's decision to expand. Additionally, today's announcement by Macy's, Inc. to locate a new, world class online processing center in Tulsa was justified in part by the Indian lands tax provision. This new 1.3 million square feet facility will employ 1,100 people full time and will expand to 2,500 people during peak periods. Construction on this project will begin in 2014, and the facility will open for business in 2015. I could not be more excited by Macy's decision to expand its operations in Oklahoma. It is a testament to Oklahoma's strong, business friendly culture and capable work force. Although the accelerated schedule is currently allowed, the law states it will expire at the end of this year. The provision has typically been renewed each year, but many business leaders have expressed concern that it is not permanent, including the executives of Macy's. As a former businessman, I understand the problem of unpredictability and so do Oklahoma's business leaders who have expressed frustration over dramatically changing government policies ranging from environmental regulations to the tax code. This kind of environment makes it difficult for businesses to proceed with investment decisions. Businesses need stability, and this is particularly true during times of economic weakness. We in Congress should take this point seriously, and take a step in the right direction by making permanent this important tax provision. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to announce the reintroduction of a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code to eliminate the taxable income limit on percentage depletion for oil and natural gas produced from marginal properties. Since 1926 small producers and millions of royalty owners have had the option to utilize percentage depletion to both simplify their accounting methodology and to account for the decline in the value of minerals produced from a property. Percentage depletion is particularly important to America's 700,000 low-volume marginal wells. The average marginal well produces barely 2 barrels per day, yet cumulatively they account for nearly 28 percent of domestic production in the lower 48 states. Since every on-shore natural gas and oil well eventually declines into marginal production, the economic life span and corresponding production of all wells is extended by allowing the use of percentage depletion. Until 1998, the deduction marginal producers could take from percentage depletion was limited to 100 percent of taxable income from each individual property. Many producers, however, specialize in marginally producing wells and have many properties operating simultaneously. Naturally, some wells in a producer's portfolio are more productive than others. Some would have depletion rates greater than 100 percent of taxable income, while others would have depletion rates lower than the limit. Removing the taxable income limitation allows producers to take percentage depletion deductions on a portfolio-wide basis, which makes their entire operation more economical. Since 1998, Congress has understood this fact and has suspended the limitation. Unfortunately, the provision has never been made permanent. It has just been extended year after year as part of the Tax Extenders Package. Since we have had this suspension on the books for more than a decade, I think it is time to give producers the predictability they need by making this common sense tax accounting provision permanent. At a time when our unemployment rate remains over 7 percent, we need to be doing everything we can to encourage economic growth. The energy industry is a major contributor to our economy, and it has a lot of room to grow. The Congressional Research Service released a report that says the United States has the most energy potential under its soil than any other country on earth. Hiding beneath our soil are jobs, wealth, and lower deficits. We should allow this sector to grow. This is a common sense, easy way to do this, so I urge swift passage.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to bring to your attention a bill I am reintroducing that would make permanent the current tax provision that allows capital assets on Indian lands to be depreciated on an accelerated schedule. For many years, the Federal tax code has provided an incentive for businesses to invest in operations on Indian reservations and lands across the country. According to the law, businesses that purchase capital equipment and use it on Indian lands will be able to depreciate it, on average, more than 40 percent faster than would otherwise be allowed. This tax provision is important to Oklahoma because of our longstanding history and unique relationship with Indian tribes. With our sluggish economy, we need to do all we can to encourage businesses to reinvest in and expand their operations, as this will create sustainable job growth. The accelerated depreciation schedule gives businesses the opportunity to recover investment dollars in capital assets more rapidly. This frees money that would have been tied up in the value of their capital assets, such as buildings, equipment, and machinery and enables companies to reinvest it more quickly than was available with a slower depreciation schedule. The Oklahoma Department of Commerce has reported that many companies attribute this provision as a key reason for relocating to and expanding within the State. One Oklahoma food processing plant manager stated that the credit was a significant factor in the company's decision to expand. Additionally, today's announcement by Macy's, Inc. to locate a new, world class online processing center in Tulsa was justified in part by the Indian lands tax provision. This new 1.3 million square feet facility will employ 1,100 people full time and will expand to 2,500 people during peak periods. Construction on this project will begin in 2014, and the facility will open for business in 2015. I could not be more excited by Macy's decision to expand its operations in Oklahoma. It is a testament to Oklahoma's strong, business friendly culture and capable work force. Although the accelerated schedule is currently allowed, the law states it will expire at the end of this year. The provision has typically been renewed each year, but many business leaders have expressed concern that it is not permanent, including the executives of Macy's. As a former businessman, I understand the problem of unpredictability and so do Oklahoma's business leaders who have expressed frustration over dramatically changing government policies ranging from environmental regulations to the tax code. This kind of environment makes it difficult for businesses to proceed with investment decisions. Businesses need stability, and this is particularly true during times of economic weakness. We in Congress should take this point seriously, and take a step in the right direction by making permanent this important tax provision. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the process for running these nominees through the Senate is unnecessary and contrived simply to ignore a number of Republican concerns. I do not oppose all the nominees, however. I wish to strongly support the confirmation of Deborah James for Secretary of the U.S. Air Force. With three Air Force installations in Oklahoma--Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma City, Altus Air Force Base, and Vance Air Force Base in Enid--the Air Force has long been a part of the fabric of the State of Oklahoma. Oklahoma is home to five major military installations between the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army. They employee thousands of Oklahomans and contract work throughout the State being responsible for a tremendous role in Oklahoma's economy. These installations enjoy the strong support of the communities in which they are located and the entire State of Oklahoma. The Senate Armed Services Committee held a nomination hearing on Ms. James back in September. In addition, I have met with Ms. James, and I have had an opportunity to discuss with her my concerns about this unprecedented period in which the readiness and capabilities of the Air Force are at significant risk because of budget cuts and sequestration. For example, the Air Force was forced to ground one-third of its combat coded active squadrons for a time during fiscal year 2013 and according to the Chief of Staff of the Air Force it will now cost a minimum of 10 percent more flying hours to fully retrain the grounded squadrons than it would have to simply keep them trained all along. Further, General Welsh stated that sequestration in fiscal year 2014 could force flying hours to be cut by 15 percent and within 3 to 4 months, many units would be unable to fly at rates required to maintain mission readiness. Ms. James has over 30 years of senior homeland and national security management, policy, and program experience in government and the private sector. She served with SAIC in McLean, VA from 2002 as the president of SAIC Technical and Engineering Sector, executive vice president for communications and government affairs, and senior vice president for Homeland Security. Prior to those positions, she served as vice president for International Operations and Marketing at United Technologies from 1998 to 2000. She served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs from 1993 to 1998, overseeing all matters pertaining to the National Guard and Reserve Forces. She has significant experience working with Congress, as a former professional staff member on the House Armed Services Committee from 1983 to 1993. She has a bachelor's degree in comparative studies from Duke University and a master's degree in international affairs from Columbia University. I believe she is very qualified and ready to start her new role. I look forward to working with Secretary James in her new role and strongly congratulate her. However, I would like to point out that these nominations are not without controversy which may be why the Democratic majority would rather ignore the minority and change the Senate for the first time in over 200 years. For example, Ms. Patricia Wald who the Administration nominated to serve on the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board has written that those accused of terrorism should be given access to the civilian trial court system and be afforded the protections of simple criminal defendants. These views ignore the devastating effects of terrorism and ignore our actual war against terrorism around the world. These acts are not simply criminal acts, they threaten our entire country. This should be the subject of debate in the Senate, not simply brushed aside for quick confirmations. Earlier the Senate voted on the nominations of two district court judges for Montana. These are lifetime appointments. The Senate confirmed these judges by a wide margin, but the Senate should not simply group a number of nominations together to pass for lifetime appointments for circuit and district judicial vacancies simply because the majority does not even want to work with the minority. This session will end with continued confirmation votes. It is to the detriment of both parties if the prerogatives, priorities, and concerns of the minority are not considered in the Senate, but it will not be easily overlooked.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I join my friend Senator Manchin from West Virginia in introducing legislation authorizing a Congressional Gold Medal for United States Air Force Fighter Aces. This bill specifically honors those American pilots who have shot down five or more enemy aircraft in aerial combat during a war or conflict in which American armed forces have participated. Since the First World War, there have been 60,000 American fighter pilots who have taken to the air in harm's way, but only 1,444 have become fighter aces. Our bill authorizes the U.S Mint to strike--at no cost to the taxpayer--a medal of appropriate design to American fighter aces in recognition of their heroic military service and defense of our country's freedom, which as spanned the history of aviation warfare. American Fighter Aces hail from every State in the Union are one of the most decorated military groups in American history. Twenty-two fighter aces have achieved the rank of admiral, and 79 have achieved the rank of general in the Army, Air Force, and Marines. And there are 19 Medal of Honor recipients. One of those aces hailed from my home State of Oklahoma. BG Robinson ``Robbie'' Risner was from Tulsa, OK, my hometown, and a fellow graduate of Tulsa Central High School in 1942. Risner then enlisted in the U.S. Army Air Force as an aviation cadet and began his career as one of America's most celebrated Fighter Aces. After being stationed in Panama during World War II, he returned home to serve in the Oklahoma Air National Guard until he was called to fight in the Korean war. There, he flew 108 missions in his sweptwing F-86 Sabre and became an ace by shooting down eight enemy MiG-15s. He also received one of two Silver Stars in his valiant attempt to save a fellow pilot. During the Vietnam war, General Risner flew 55 missions and led the first flight of air strikes over North Vietnam in Operation Rolling Thunder, earning him the Air Force Cross. While flying in another raid in his F-105 Thunderchief on September 16, 1965, he took fire and was forced to bail out. He was captured and was a prisoner of war for 7 years 4 months and 27 days, serving most of his time in the infamous Hanoi Hilton. He was kept shackled for weeks at a time and spent more than 3 years in a darkened, solitary cell. In his 1973 memoir, ``The Passing of the Night: Seven Years as a Prisoner of the North Vietnamese,'' he wrote, ``I did not ask God to take me out of it. I prayed he would give me strength to endure it.'' After his release in 1973, General Risner returned to the air in the F-4 Phantom II in the 1st Tactical Fighter Wing at MacDill Air Force Base, FL. He was later transferred to Cannon Air Force Base, NM, in February 1974 to command the 832d Air Division, in which he flew the F- 111 Aardvark. He was promoted to brigadier general in May 1974, became vice commander of the USAF Tactical Fighter Weapons Center at Nellis Air Force Base, NV, in 1975 and retired in 1976. He spent his retirement years involved in community service projects and spoke often before gatherings of veterans and other pilots. He was inducted into the Oklahoma Hall of Fame in 1974 and passed away in his sleep on October 22, 2013, at the age of 88. I salute Gen Robbie Risner and all other American fighter aces who have served our country so courageously and selflessly. It is my honor to be associated with the introduction of this legislation today which authorizes a Congressional Gold Medal for U.S. Air Force fighter aces.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I thank my good friend from Kentucky.

Mr. INHOFE. Since he was talking about the EPA, the overregulations there, I happen to have been privileged when we were in the majority to be the chairman of the committee called the Environment and Public Works Committee. It does a lot of very important things in terms of highways and roads and infrastructure. What the Senator from Kentucky was talking about is all the overregulations that come from that. I am very sensitive to that. That is not why I am here tonight. In fact, I wish to talk a little bit about the nuclear option, about how this has changed things around here, and it is somewhat of a crisis level we have arrived at. Before I do, I wish to share something on ObamaCare. A lot of things have been said on this floor about the problems with ObamaCare. I wish to elaborate a little bit about that in a minute but not right now. I only wish to say that 2 months ago, when my good friend from Texas, Senator Cruz, and 11 of us were concerned about trying to do something to stop ObamaCare and we took some pretty drastic steps--he actually stayed up and spoke all night--I did not, but I spoke during the evening and again in the morning. But I told a story at that time. It puts it into a context that people don't understand. The story was this: Keep in mind this was 2 months ago. I said it has been admitted by Obama and by many of the leaders--even the leader of the Senate--that the ultimate goal of ObamaCare would be the single- payer health care system, very much like what was talked about back in the early 1990s when Bill Clinton was President and Hillary had her Hillary health care and at that time I think it was ultimately going to be a single-payer system. As my colleagues well know, a single-payer system by definition is socialized medicine, and that was what it was going to be at that time. I remember talking--and we ultimately did defeat it, but at that time I asked the question, I said: Wait a minute. You are talking about socialized medicine. It doesn't work in Denmark or Sweden or Canada or in the UK. Why do you think it would work if you were doing it? They never tell us this, but they say it may not work somewhere else, but if I were running it, it would work. We defeated that back in the 1990s. Now, some time has gone by, and we have very much the same situation. We have a system that is edging into socialized medicine, a single- payer system. This is what they want. This is what liberals normally do want. They somehow think that government can run things better than people can. So I told this story, I say to my good friend in the Chair. Keep in mind, this was 2 months ago. It had been less than a year before that when something happened to my wife--and my wife is just a year younger than I am--something happened, and all of a sudden she found out she had to have emergency open-heart surgery. It was a valve that was the problem at that time. We did some research. She immediately had open- heart surgery. It was successful. She is great now. They replaced the valve, and she is in really good shape. But the point I am making is that if this had happened and we had been citizens of Canada--we went and checked--someone that age with that kind of an emergency would have to wait 6 months before they could determine whether they were going to allow them to have that operation. If it were in the UK, it would be 2 months. She would not have lasted that long. That was to let people know that when it hits close to home, it really means lot more, instead of just talking about how many people are not happy with the enrollment and all this stuff. Well, ironically, what happened to me 5 weeks ago was exactly the same thing. I ended up having to have emergency surgery. I had four heart bypasses. I got to thinking. Just a few weeks before, I had been talking about my wife. I would not be here now. That is how serious this is. Because those individuals who are talking about ObamaCare, they really want a system that the government is running, and it has not worked anywhere else in the world. In cases like mine, I would be on the waiting list and I probably would not have made it this far and would not have been here today. I only say that--and I want to elaborate a little bit on that shortly, but I need to get in something very significant that is going to take place. First of all, I do not like the idea of what is going on right now. I am very much upset that we had the nuclear option. I think most people--and it has been said over and over on the floor-- constitutionally, we have a system that is set up that puts the Senate in a position where there has to be a supermajority that will ratify the various treaties and will confirm nominees. Well, the nominees who are confirmed are confirmed with a supermajority. Consequently, that would preclude one party from being able to control the confirmation of nominees. Well, the makeup of the Senate today and for the next year is going to be 53 Democrats dominating, which means, of course, they can always get the 53 votes for confirmation but not any more, not enough to reach 60. So they changed all that, and that is wrong. They should not have done it. So now we are going through this operation, and I decided that rather than to stay here during this Christmas season for the next few days just voting no on judges, I am going to say right now that I am going to vote against all the judges, but I am not going to be around here to do it. I will say this though. James Nomination There is one vote that is coming up, and I am going to appeal to the leadership that I hope the confirmation of Deborah Lee James to be Secretary of the Air Force does not come up until this next week because I want to be here for that, and I would hope it could be postponed until Monday. The reason for that is I think that is a great appointment. I do not remember in the years I have been here--and I am the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee--I do not remember anytime when we have had someone who is as qualified at the outset as she is. She has an incredible background for this position. I have met her. I have talked to her. I have talked to her about the concerns about the readiness, which is very serious right now. Our readiness capabilities are lower than they have ever been since World War II. I know she is the right person to be at the helm to take care of that. It was not long ago that through the sequestration or preparing for sequestration they made a decision to ground one-third of the combat- coded Active squadrons. Now, let's keep in mind that she is nominated to be Secretary of the Air Force, so this is something she would directly be interested in and concerned about. What they did was, in order to--I suppose at that time the motivation was to try to save money. They grounded one-third of the combat-coded Active squadrons. That was in April of this year. It was not until 3 months later that they decided this is not good because you have the idle airplanes, the idle pilots. Pilots were resigning; they were upset because they were not being used. So they reinstated the squadrons that had been closed. General Welsh, a great general, the commander of the Air Force, made the statement, and made it in a very articulate way, that it is going to cost us more to reinstate and to requalify the pilots and to make sure the planes are back in flying order than just the amount of money that was saved during that 3-month period. That is really quite a statement. It is very serious. He said it could cut the flying hours by 15 percent in the months to come--and it has--as a result of that closure. Well, I have to say to Ms. James that I am convinced you are going to be confirmed as Secretary of the Air Force. I will do all I can to make sure you are confirmed. But you are walking into a hornet's nest. It is a real serious problem there. The things that are happening to our military, which I am going to talk about in just a minute, are very serious. She has a background. She served with a technical defense contractor in Virginia. It was the SAIC Technical and Engineering Sector. She was the executive vice president for communications and government affairs and the senior vice president for homeland security. Prior to that, she served as vice president for international operations marketing at United Technologies. That was all the way from 1998 to 2000. She served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs from 1993 to 1998, overseeing all matters pertaining to the Guard and Reserve forces. So she has probably as much preparation, background, expertise, education, and knowledge as anyone who has ever been nominated to be Secretary of the Air Force. I hope we will be able to have that vote maybe on Monday as opposed to some time in the next few hours since I want to be here. I want to be one of the first to congratulate her. (Mr. COONS assumed the Chair.) The Budget

Mr. INHOFE. Let me say something about the budget. I try to think of things other people have not talked about. I do not even know right now whether I am going to be for or against this budget, but I had looked, and I was very alarmed. The minority staff on Armed Services did some research, and it came out that there are some parts of this act that we did not know were there. It would include an annual adjustment for retired pay and retainer pay for retired members of the Armed Forces under age 62. This penalizes current and future military members who have served our Nation for over 20 years. Now, keep in mind, people go into the military quite young sometimes, knowing that the time they would serve would be for 20 years--many of them longer but most of the time 20 years. That is kind of a given. They do this predicated on the assumption that retirement benefits and all these things are going to be there. They are making a career decision, I say to the Chair, and that is very significant. To come along with a bill that supposedly saves $6.2 billion--there are about 2 million retirees. Of those, just under half are under the age of 62. They would see a steady erosion of their retired pay, approaching 20 percent of their retirement pay by the time they reach age 62. The 1-percent annual reduction to uniformed service retired pay cost- of-living adjustment--those are the COLAs--for those under age 62 will have a devastating, long-term impact for those who retire at the 20- year point. It implements an annual adjustment to retired pay of the ``Consumer Price Index -1%'' beginning in December of 2015. What that means in summary is that you could have a gunnery sergeant retiring at age 42, and by the time he is 62, this bill would cause him to receive in his retirement pay approximately $72,000 less than he would otherwise. So it is a big deal. This has not been discussed on the floor, and I think that as we get into the discussion we are going to have on the budget, we have to keep these things in mind. Again, I have not decided yet because I know it is not an easy job. I know we had a Democrat and a Republican working very hard on it. But that is one thing that I believe can be changed. In fact, it would have to be changed before I would support it. National Defense Authorization Act Well, we went through something, and I want to talk a little bit about the National Defense Authorization Act. Every year we have a National Defense Authorization Act. That act is more important than anything else we do around here, in my opinion. If you read the Constitution, it will say that providing for the Nation's defense is our major concern. This is what we are supposed to be doing. So we have always had--in fact, for 51 consecutive years we have passed an NDAA bill prior to January. It has always been that way. This is a budget that must take place. This is very disturbing to me because the House passed an NDAA bill some time ago. We in the Senate Armed Services Committee, way back--was it May or June--we passed the NDAA out of our committee, not unanimously but almost unanimously, and it was bipartisan, had strong bipartisan support to come to the floor. Well, it never came up. And why it never came up is not that important right now. The fact is that we are now in a position where we have to do it and have to have one come up, and it has to be this coming week. So, anyway, we put together a bill. There is something a lot of people do not understand because it is not very often used, but when the House and the Senate are not able to put something together, they go to the big four. They get the committee of jurisdiction--in this case, the Senate Armed Services Committee. So they had the chairman and the ranking member--the ranking member is the one who has the most rank from the minority, and that is me in the case of the Senate--and then the chairman of the House and the ranking member of the House. Four people. We sat together 10 days ago here in Washington and put together a bill, taking the best parts out of the House bill, the best parts out of the Senate bill, and put together this thing, and it is one that I think--when people understand it--it is one for which I do not know of anyone who would really oppose it. The problem we are having is that the way it was done was not the way it should have been done. It should have been done as it has been done in the past; that is, to take about--in the last 10 years, it has taken 9 days on average to pass this bill, where we have all of the amendments processed and people come forth with amendments. Well, that did not happen this time. So what we did in this bill is we took 79 of the amendments that people had in the House and the Senate--Republicans and Democrats--we did 79; that is, 41 Republican amendments and 38 Democrat amendments. These are ones that had been submitted on the Senate floor, and we were able to go ahead and put these into the bill. So we have a good bill. It is out there. We really need to do it. People are concerned about the process. I am concerned. We are going to get busy to make sure this does not happen in future years. We do not want it to happen. But we do not want our service people, who are in harm's way today, to be paying for the fact that we had a procedure that was wrong. We have a vehicle here. We have a bill. It will come up for consideration. It will come over from the House, and I anticipate in the first part of the week we will have this bill. What does it do? First, it authorizes 37 special and incentive pays, including reenlistment bonuses and certain health bonuses. Here, we are talking about people who are considering reenlisting. Right now they are in the service. I mentioned a minute ago some of the aviators. Well, this is mostly the Army and the Marines and the Navy. These people are making career decisions. They make career decisions predicated on what they anticipate is going to be out there, and what is going to be out there is what kind of a bonus they will get at the time. Of course, in the event this does not happen, they would not be entitled to these bonuses, if we do not pass this bill. That is how significant it is. When you talk about certain health professional bonuses, they would expire also. These health benefit bonuses are very significant, because these are the people who are the health providers for our Wounded Warriors, not just the ones that are in our hospitals today but also in hospice care. We cannot do that to them. However, if we do not pass this bill, that is going to be a real serious problem. There has been a lot of talk about sexual assaults. We have two Senators, both Democrats, Senator Gillibrand and Senator McCaskill, who disagree with each other but who have amendments. So what we did is take parts of each one of those amendments--27 specific reforms to support victims and to encourage sexual assault reporting and an additional nine enhancements to the military justice system. Arguably the one on the floor who knows most about this would be our friend Senator Graham. I think he has looked at these and agrees that these provisions are really very significant, and things that are not going to be there otherwise. These would have been in the House bill and in the Senate bill in the regular procedure to pass these bills, but they will not be there if we do not pass this one bill. They are there. Gitmo. I look around the Chamber, and it seems like there is such a diverse attitude toward what we have done in the past and will do in the future with Gitmo. That is Guantanamo Bay down in Cuba. I have often said from this podium that is one of the few good deals that we have. We have had Gitmo since the year 1904. It costs $4,000 a year. Half the time Castro does not collect it. So it is a pretty good deal which you do not often get in the government. It is very expensive to house people there. But it does perform a function that cannot be performed anywhere else. So last year in the National Defense Authorization bill, we put a provision in there, fortunately at that time, that would restore the 1-year prohibition on transferring Gitmo detainees to the United States and to prohibit constructing any type of facility to house them if they are successful in doing that. That was not good. It should have been forever. But it expires now. That means if we do not have this bill, we will cede that to the President. The President will have total control. If he wanted to take every one of these terrorists out of Gitmo and send them to Yemen or put them in the United States, he could do it. So that is probably one of the most significant parts of this bill. So this restores the 1-year prohibition on transferring Gitmo detainees to the United States, and it prohibits the construction or modification of facilities in the United States to house Gitmo detainees. Our training ranges. This bill provides DOD with access to millions of acres of Federal land. Keep in mind, it does not cost anything; it is Federal land--for military tests and training ranges that are really absolutely necessary for the readiness of our combat forces. We have all heard about end strength. The Obama administration I have often said I think will go down in history as the most antidefense President ever. One of the things that we know is going to happen is the end strength will continue to reduce. This bill allows the Army and the Marine Corps' top people to make the decisions as to where this end strength is going to be reduced and by what amount. By doing this, they can accelerate the strength reduction and save a considerable amount of money. So they will have the flexibility to draw down faster, save money, do it quicker and do it better. Without this bill, they cannot do that. Military construction. You know, no other military construction can take place. But what is worse than that is, on military construction that has already been started, that is new construction, they would have to stop that military construction. When you do that then you come back later and start it again, it costs millions and millions of dollars more, a lot more money. Here is another good example of another area that would be a huge savings. Right now we are working on several aircraft carriers. One is CVN-78, the USS Ford. It is a huge project. It is 75 percent completed. We have already spent $12 billion on it. In the absence of this bill, that construction would have to stop. Now, I know that we would come to our senses and maybe in a few months come up with a CR that might have money that would go toward this. But that is still--when you stop and then start up again, it would be millions, hundreds of millions of dollars of cost. That is corrected in this bill. Not to say anything about the number of people who would be immediately released: 4,300 ship builders who work directly on the ships, and about 1,500 who work indirectly. So it is an economic issue for a lot of people. That is important but not as important as the fact that it is going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars if we do not pass this bill. The LCS. This allows the littoral combat ship construction to continue in the shipyards. That is in Alabama and Wisconsin. Again, it does not happen if this bill is not passed. That is not going to happen. Special operations. I think we are all familiar with the special ops guys. I know the chair is very familiar with that. These are the ones who go out there in harm's way and take the risk and are specially trained. The commander there is Admiral McRaven. That is his No. 1 priority--the preservation of special operations forces and families after the 12 years of sustained combat by authorizing various human, resiliency and family care programs. In other words, these people, many of them have families. The families are cared for in a way that has been certainly well deserved by the fighter that they represent. Yet those programs would stop in the absence of this. So I think that is very important. Just looking at the human end of it, the families, the mothers and the kids that are back there. They have special needs because of the sustained deployments that these great troops have. I would mention also, that in addition to some of the things that we have talked about in using some of the Federal land, this includes land use agreements to ensure special operations. That is what we were just talking about, so the special operations forces have sufficient access to training ranges, including the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range in California, which serves an indispensable role in training Navy seals. In fact, when you go and you watch them, you see that you cannot train our Navy seals without this facility. So this takes care of that. Lastly--I could mention a whole lot more--one of the significant things people are taking about is waste in the Pentagon. This provides for an audit of the Department of Defense. It requires a full audit of DOD no later than March 31, 2019. It will take a long time to do this. It has never been done before. This bill will call for the beginning of this process. We all know about the nuclear triad. The nuclear triad gives us that nuclear capability in our bombers, ICBMs and our submarine-launched ballistic missiles. This bill prohibits the elimination of one of those three legs. We have seen a lot of programs. You could save so much money if you eliminate the submarine element of that. But in order to adequately protect America, it is important that we have all three legs. So that nuclear triad--and remember that phrase. That is the one where one leg would be eliminated in the absence of this bill. The prohibition on tech transfers with Russia. This would prohibit the transfer of some missile defense technology to Russia and strengthen the Congressional oversight of the administration's efforts with regard to the United States and Russia's missile defense cooperation. You know, if we do not do it, the President is going to do it. I would hope that anyone who would be voting in this Chamber knows that is a key issue, and it should be a key issue. We recognize, if we do not continue to take control of that in the Congress, then that would automatically go to the President. I do not think we want that to happen. We all saw what happened in the first budget that the President had. I would never forget that, because I went over--I knew that he was going to be antimilitary, antidefense. So I went over to Afghanistan to respond to it, knowing full well that we were going to have to do something to let the American people know how bad that budget was on the military. In that first budget of President Obama's, it was 4\1/2\ years ago, almost 5 years ago, he did away with our only 5th generation fighter, the F-22; did away with our new lift capacity, the C-17; did away with the Future Combat System, which is the only advancement we have had in about 30 years in our ground capability. He did away with the ground-based interceptor in Poland. Now, let's keep in mind, the ground-based interceptor in Poland is one that we were putting there because we have currently 33 ground-based interceptors here in America, but they are on the west coast. That is where the threat was at that time. Now things have changed. We found out in the year 2007--it was not even classified. Our intelligence said that Iran is going to have the nuclear capability and a delivery system by 2015, and 2015 is just a little over a year away from right now. So we knew that way back in 2007. We started building a ground-based interceptor in Poland, with a radar in the Czech Republic. I thought we were doing very well. We had to give them the assurance that we would not pull the rug out from under them if they would cooperate. Then that went out. That was withdrawn in the President's first budget 4\1/2\ years ago. Now we are faced with that threat. Because if something comes into this country from Iran, it is going to come from the East. If there is a lucky shot from the west coast, that is fine. But I do not have that confidence that could happen. So I say that because it fits in with the missile defense. It directs the administration in this bill to make improvements and modernize the ground-based midcourse defense system. That is what we are talking about here. Without this, that could probably--not probably, possibly--be the most significant thing that we have been talking about here, because now we are talking about an incoming missile to the United States. The BRAC process, the Base Realignment and Closure Commission. We have had five of them since 1987. Whether you are for a base closure or not, that is not as significant as it is that we are at a time in history where we have the greatest need to put back some of the money that has been taken out by this administration into our defense system. As good as a lot of BRAC systems are, the fact is that the first 3 to 5 years of the BRAC, it costs money, it does not save money. That is what we cannot let happen. So we restrict the use of funds to conduct a round of base realignment and closures for the coming year, because people are talking about that. Here is a big one too that means a lot. It means a lot to my son, Jimmy, who is real big time into Second Amendment rights. We are from Oklahoma. We actually believe that stuff. We believe in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, I say to my friend in the chair. There is a treaty called the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty that the U.N. has. I am the wrong one to talk about this, because I have never seen anything good come out of the United Nations. But in this case it is worse than usual. The UN Arms Trade Treaty is one that our Secretary of State has already signed onto. But it has to be ratified by the Senate. Well, in this bill, it restricts the funding to implement the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty without the Senate's advise and consent on the treaty. Well, that is important. In fact, it reminds me a little bit of what happened when we had the budget vote a few months ago. At that time, I am trying to remember now, but I think it was 5 o'clock in the morning. You would be surprised the kind of amendments you can get passed at 5 o'clock in the morning. So at 5 o'clock in the morning, I had an amendment that said that we would not allow the United States to join--to be a part of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty. That was good. But this reinforces that and says that--it restricts it. So if we were to do it, even if the Senate were to do it, it would restrict the funding so it cannot happen. So I would say to all of my friends out there who believe in Second Amendment rights, who have been concerned that through a U.N. treaty you could lose the Second Amendment rights, do not worry about it because we would have it. If we pass this bill, you are going to be well taken care of. So I feel very good about the provisions in this bill, I really believe that, when you stop and think about the fact that we actually had 79 amendments that were agreed to in this bill that we tried to pass before. The Senate Armed Services Committee adopted its version of the NDAA by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in June, and yet we know what has happened. We know why it is necessary because this is the last shot we actually have at a bill. The House, at 11 o'clock Friday morning, will go out of session. They will be adjourned for this year. The week after that the Senate will. That shows the time we have to get all of this done. That is why there are those individuals who say: You don't have to adopt a bill that the four of you put together. Even though it may be good, we want to have a lot of amendments and go through that process. Unfortunately, there is not time because if we did that it would have to go over to the House. They are already adjourned as of 11 o'clock Friday morning. We are out of time and the only choice we have now is either to adopt this or not have a bill at all. As frustrated as I am about the process, we have a commitment to provide our military men and women the support that they require, and we have a bill that will do that. If we fail to pass the NDAA, it would send a terrible signal to all of our troops over there. I have a card of some of the things that we would lose that I mentioned on that rather lengthy list may not happen until next year, may not happen until the first part of the year. Some of them would take place in February and some in March. What would happen is a question that was asked by our fine Senator Fischer from Nebraska. She said: What would happen at the end of this year on December 31. What provisions would we lose if we don't pass this bill? The answer is there are several of them, and I will highlight a few of them. One would be the bonus for new officers in critical skills, the incentive bonus for conversion to military occupational specialty to ease personnel shortages. For those of us who have been in the military, that is called the MOSs. The incentive bonuses for transfer between armed forces. Someone who is transferred from one area to the other, we have the obligation to pay his expenses and without those bonuses, we wouldn't be able to do it. Aviator officer retention. I mentioned a minute ago that one-third of the combat squadrons were deactivated, they were grounded and the pilots with them. I talked about that and how General Welch gave us a good documentation. That endured for 3 months. At the end of the 3 months the amount of that money that was saved by grounding that equipment was far offset by the amount to get people back up to the correct qualifications. One of the things that would happen is the aviation officer retention bonus. This is to keep these pilots in the service, because it costs much less to retain a pilot than it does to retrain one and start from scratch. I know that. We have a couple of the Rangers in my State of Oklahoma in Vance Air Force Base where I will be tomorrow. That is one of the largest centers that we have training pilots. Our problem is a pilot shortage. One of the reasons is because, as I just said, if they are grounding these airplanes these pilots finally say: If I can't fly, I am getting out of here. There have been a lot of them who have left. The only thing that would hold them would be the existing aviation officer retention bonus. This gives a bonus for someone to re-up. If anyone has been in the services, they will remember--as I do from the U.S. Army--that when they are trying to get people, to encourage people to re-up, it is a lot cheaper to retain someone than it is to retrain them. We give them bonuses. We did that when I was in the service. That is a bonus they would not get. With already a serious problem with a shortage of pilots, we have to do something about that. That would abruptly stop December 31. That means the pilots making this decision may not even know this. They may decide they are going to do it and then they find out they don't have a retention bonus. The assignment pay or special duty pay, this would be for transfers. This would be something you would not be able to do, as well as the hardship that would have to be borne by the military. Healthcare professionals bonus. This is important. If we go out to Walter Reed and see the great job that is done by the professionals with our wounded warriors, it does impress people to see what is going on. I am very excited to see that program has been good. But these health care professionals operate on a bonus or special pay. That would stop December 31. I know they are committed, they would stay as long as they could, but some of them couldn't afford to do that. This would stop on the January 31. Reenlistment bonus for active members, that would stop also. What I am saying is we are going to have to do this bill. It is absolutely necessary. I am not the only one who says that. If we look at General Dempsey--talk about the deteriorating condition of our military now--keeping in mind that with this President over 4\1/ 2\ years ago, over this 10-year budget, he has taken over $487 billion out of the military, if we have Obama sequestration as it is designed now, that will be another $500 billion. That is a total of $1 trillion. General Dempsey is the top military person in the military. He is the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He said: But I will tell you personally, if ever the force is so degraded and so unready, and then we're asked to use it, it would be immoral to use the force unless it's well-trained, well-led and well-equipped. Admiral Winnefeld, the second in charge, the vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said: ``There could be for the first time in my career instances where we may be asked to respond to a crisis and we will have to say that we cannot.'' Secretary Hagel, I opposed his confirmation when he was in. Actually, I think he has improved so much more than I thought he would since that time. He is not afraid to talk about these things. He said: ``If these abrupt cuts remain, we risk fielding a force that over the next few years is unprepared due to a lack of training, maintenance, and the latest equipment.'' It is America he is talking about. This is the Secretary of Defense. Another thing General Dempsey said--in fact, I carry a card around with me because a lot of people don't believe this. General Dempsey at one time in February 2013, this year, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that: We are putting our military on a path where the force is so degraded and so unready that it would be immoral to use force. General Odierno, the Commander of the Army, said: Additionally, it is unlikely that the Army would be able to defeat an adversary quickly and decisively should they be called upon to engage in a single, sustained major combat operation. When we talk about a major combat operation, we are talking about one they used to call the combat operations where major contingencies are on a regional basis. Our policy, since World War II, has been able to do this to defend America on two regional fronts. That has gone out the window and we are not able to do that anymore. Secretary Hagel also said: ``If sequester-level cuts persist''--which is what we are talking about, the second half trillion that Obama would be taking out of the military--``we risk fielding a force that is unprepared.'' I can't imagine hearing that from our own Secretary of Defense, but it is there. I wish to show us why our choices are down to only one choice. On this chart if we look at December, today is the 12th. The House leaves at 11 o'clock Friday morning. They are gone, they are gone for the rest of the year. Anything we do that has to go to the House, they won't be there. It can't be done. We work for 1 more week starting the December 16, this coming Monday, and we go all the way through the week where we will be in session. Anything we would do or pass or amend could not go to the House, and that means we would go into December 31 without any kind of advance authorization. On that basis it is significant and that shows we actually have to do it. I think I mentioned this. I have a chart, but I don't have it in front of me--show since 1970 we always have had our Defense authorization done before January. The only two exceptions to that were when they were vetoed by the President on two occasions and we had to override the veto. Nonetheless, that is why this month is the last chance we have to do it. I would mention that there is such popular support for this around the country that we have extremes--not really extremes--but publications generally considered to be on the progressive or moderate side and some conservative. This is one where both the Heritage Foundation and the Washington Post say let's pass the defense deal. It has to pass. The Heritage Foundation has an extra paper that if there is time later on I may make some quotes from that. The Washington Post says: With the end of 2013 rapidly approaching, Congress has an opportunity to rise above a year of massive dysfunction and prevent major disruptions in U.S. defense operations. The leaders of the Senate and the House armed services committees have managed to fashion a bipartisan version. That is what we are talking about when I say the big four, so this is what we are talking about. Continuing: It's a decent compromise that the leaders of both chambers ought to embrace and bring to a vote in the coming days. A failure to do so would be a new political low for this Congress. The NDAA has been passed 51 consecutive years, even when much of the rest of government had to make do with temporary authorities. But much more than political symbolism is at issue. Though defense funding ultimately must be provided by appropriators, the authorization bill extends vital Pentagon authorities and ultimately sanctions new operations. If no bill is approved by Jan. 1, combat pay and bonuses for U.S. troops in Afghanistan and elsewhere would be suspended; work on major weapons systems, including a new aircraft carrier, would be halted at considerable cost; and support for the Afghan army and the disposal of Syria's chemical weapons would be interrupted at a critical moment. The bill also contains important measures to combat sexual crimes in the military. We talked about that, but this is being editorialized, not by me on the floor of the Senate, but by the Washington Post. They talk about Guantanamo Bay and they say: . . . advance the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison-- It could take place in the absence of this legislation. Continuing: Though a proposal was favored by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), providing for the prosecution of sex crimes outside the military chain of command, it was not included--did not receive a Senate vote--some three dozen other reforms in legislation would make the punishment of these crimes more likely while providing more protections to victims. Let me conclude this editorial by reading the next-to-the-last paragraph. It says: Other measures in the bill ought to attract broad bipartisan support. The effects on defense of the so-called sequester would be eased by transferring money to operations and training from less essential accounts, such as construction and staffing in office headquarters. The Pentagon is still vulnerable to a $50 billion sequester cut in January unless a separate budget deal can head it off. But passage of the authorization act would prevent the worst disruptions of ongoing operations. It goes on to say that this is in the House and the House, very likely, is going to pass it, and send it over to the Senate, and they strongly support it. We have letters from all of the Armed Services to us and to the leader, Senator Harry Reid. This one is from Martin Dempsey. He is urging us to pass this. It is not only me and a handful of Senators, this is the military speaking. He is the top military personnel. He said: I write to urge you to complete the National Defense Authorization Act this year. The authorities contained therein are critical to the Nation's defense and urgently needed to ensure we all keep faith with the men and women, military and civilian, selflessly serving in our Armed Forces. He goes on to say, ``This is the most significant concern we have right now,'' that we may not be able to pass this bill. We have a letter from General Welsh. General Welsh, if you remember, is the chief of the Air Force. He is the one who is so upset with the fact we had grounded some of our combat squadrons. He says: The FY14 NDAA contains critical authorities that enable us to protect the American people while keeping promises to our active duty, Guard, Reserve and civilian Airmen. If this important legislation is not enacted I worry about significant impacts to Air Force operations that could jeopardize the missions we are tasked to perform. He goes on to say how important that is; that it is a matter of life and death to many of the airmen who are out there. We have the same thing from General Amos of the Marine Corps, who says: . . . our hard-won gains on the Twenty-nine Palms land expansion will be threatened, and the construction of the next generation aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, will stop. Passage of the this vital legislation will prove to our Marines and Sailors our unwavering support. That is what we are talking about because those are the guys who are out there. I see my good friend from Arizona Senator McCain, and I would say I have been talking about the degraded condition of our military right now and how much worse it is going to be if we are not able to do this bill that I have outlined in some detail. Hopefully, we will be successful in doing that.

Mr. INHOFE. I would say to my friend that is true, but also, over in the House they did it the way it should be done. They passed it out of committee, they got it to the floor and passed it. Ours was passed by a huge bipartisan margin. We only had three or four vote against it, and that was way back in--I think it was the last of May or 1st of June. It should have been done back then instead of waiting until 1 week before we are out of here.

Mr. INHOFE. It is right up here. It shows the House, on Friday, at 11 o'clock, is out of here. They are gone. They are adjourned. If something should happen--we were to amend something--they are not there. So it can't be done. This is where we are now. We only have these 5 days that are left. A lot of people have said--and I would ask my friend from Arizona if he agrees with this--well, we can come back in January and do this. But then look at this. We come back on the 6th of January, and the CR--the continuing resolution--is here. I can assure you, from past experience, that will dominate the floor. They are certainly not going to have time to do it. So the only shot we have is up here. But also important, I read a list of things before my good friend came in, that expire on December 31, and those are things that are happening right now to all of our pilots. My colleague certainly knows about that. They have bailed out. They are gone now. They are so upset with what is happening with the grounding of our squadrons. If we take away their reenlistment incentive, are we going to have any pilots left?

Mr. INHOFE. That is correct.

Mr. INHOFE. I respond to my friend that it was addressed in the House bill and in the Senate bill, but the Senate bill didn't pass, so this is all that is left. Specifically, 10 days ago, we were meeting and putting this together--the big four, as they call it. It had 27 specific reforms in this area to support victims, to encourage sexual assault reporting, and, in addition, nine enhancements to the military justice system. I mentioned our good friend from South Carolina, who is probably the expert in this area, and we consulted him, along with a lot of the other people, both Senator Gillibrand and Senator McCaskill had amendments and we have bits out of each one of those amendments they had. They are both better off than they were before. But without this, we got nothing--no changes at all. So we have made great progress in this bill in the sexual assaults, as well as I mentioned Gitmo too which is a very controversial issue.

Mr. INHOFE. That is exactly right. As you point out, they were apart on a lot of issues, but what we did was to take those areas that will improve the situation and adopted them, and they are a part of this bill. So the whole issue of sexual harassment will not be addressed at all in the absence of this legislation. Of two of the very significant provisions that are here, certainly that is one of them. I mentioned a minute ago the other one. I know we have had differences of opinion between us on the whole Gitmo thing. Yet we have a provision in there now that I think satisfies us both until we all have time to sit down and work these things out. The bottom line is this: We have things where it would cost huge amounts of money. If you just take the CVN-78, they would have to stop construction, after we have already spent $12 billion, and after it is 75 percent done. That cost would be tremendous, especially when we all know we will go back and reinstate it. But this wouldn't be just millions, it would be hundreds of millions of dollars. That is what is going to happen if we don't pass this bill.

Mr. INHOFE. My colleague is fully aware, because no one has spent more time over in these areas of hostility than my good friend from Arizona, that when you talk to these guys, and you sit in the mess hall with them, one of the things--and we know this is true because we have both had experience in the military--they are talking about is their careers. They are talking about their careers. Right now our retention is as good as it has ever been. What is going to happen to our retention if all of a sudden we renege on the reenlistment bonuses that they all depend upon? They all talk to each other. About the time that stops on December 31, I have great fear over what is going to happen to our retention rate. I talked about in the very beginning about what has happened in the military in the last 4\1/2\ years, and I read all of the statements from our commanders, from Dempsey, and actually even the Secretary of Defense, talking about what a crisis it is. They all said it is much more of a crisis if we don't pass this bill. This isn't going to help us like it should. We should be in much better shape than this even if we pass it. But we have to pass this or all those things we talked about which are going to be affecting our troops directly are going to take place.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank my friend from Arizona for coming down and showing what a traumatic situation we have right now. I hope two things come from this. First of all, that we go ahead and pass the NDA bill and then make sure that next year we are there to make sure this doesn't happen again in the same way it has happened. I ask unanimous consent to have some testimonials printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I am pleased that the Senate is scheduled, hopefully, to pass H.R. 3521, the Department of Veterans Affairs Major Medical Facility Lease Authorization Act of 2013, known as S. 1740 in the Senate, which I proudly cosponsored. The treatment of our country's veterans is of great importance to me, and I believe that it is the government's duty to honor the promises made to our veterans. My constituents have written to me many times regarding the worsening conditions of the VA outpatient clinic in Tulsa. The building currently lacks the space to care adequately for the large number of veterans that receive their medical treatment at the facility. Due to the size of the facility, services such as the behavioral health services were located several miles away. Additionally, the parking lot capacity was not acceptable. It is because of my constituents that I have worked vigorously to ensure that their voices were heard. With the passage of this bill, there will be funding to improve and expand this clinic. The new VA outpatient clinic in Tulsa would include primary care, women's health, imaging, specialty care, physical therapy, audiology, optometry, mental health, prosthetics, dentistry, and a pharmacy. The facility would then be able to provide the services that were promised to our men and women who were willing to make the personal sacrifices necessary to serve in the defense of our country.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, let me express my appreciation for not just since this last Monday--a week ago today-- when we met and put together a negotiated settlement, a negotiated bill, but all year long, in the previous year, Senator Levin has been very good to work with. We did our best to get a bill. We passed our bill out of committee months ago--months ago--and the problem has been here. I am critical of the leadership of the Senate and a lot of the people who wanted amendments. I have to say this: On the Republican side, we agreed, finally, to cut it down to 25 amendments, which I think is very reasonable, and we were denied that. I could be critical. It does not do any good to be critical of the majority right now because we are where we are now. The chairman has stated that looking at December we only have between now and Friday at 11 o'clock. That is it; the House is gone. They have already made that decision. They have made the announcement. It is going to happen. So mechanically, if we are all going to embrace and love each other and not disagree with anything, it still could not be done. There is no way in the world we can have a defense authorization bill this year except to do the negotiated bill we got together on. By the way, when people say they want to wait until January, keep in mind that on December 31 the services will no longer be authorized to pay hazardous pay to the troops serving in hostile-fire areas. After December 31 the services will no longer be authorized to offer 37 specific special and incentive pays, including enlistment and reenlistment bonuses. These people in service, those who have been in service, we know they approach them when it is getting close to the time they are going to get out. They say: These are the benefits that are going to be there if you will reenlist. It is absolutely necessary that they have that information. All of a sudden, we are pulling the rug out from under them, after they had anticipated what their reenlistment would be. Those things stop December 31. If you say: Well, we will come back in January and do it, I can show you this calendar right here. We start on January 6, and we are going to be in the CR on January 15. There is no way they are going to pay any attention to Defense authorization during that time period. There is not the time to do it. I will not be redundant and repeat what the chairman talked about that would not happen. Gitmo is controversial. However, the provisions in the Fiscal Year 2013 NDAA which prohibit the transfer of Gitmo detainees to the United States have expired. The prohibitions, which are currently in effect, which prevent the transfer of detainees to the United States are provisions which were included in an Appropriations Act. That Act, which has been extended due to the CR, is set to expire in January. Therefore, it is important to enact the FY'14 NDAA since our bill will extend these prohibitions for all of 2014. Of course, we also passed prohibitions on construction and modifying facilities in the United States. However, all of these prohibitions could come to an end if we do not have this bill. Now, we have covered this. I appreciate the fact--and I want to repeat what the chairman said--that we actually had and cleared and considered some 87 amendments. In this bill we got 79 of the amendments; that is, Democratic and Republican amendments. So we have done this in the areas where we are supposed to be accomplishing it. I looked at some of the things in military construction. We will have to stop work on any major projects that are currently under construction. I mean, they could be partway through a project. For example, the bill contains $136 million to continue construction for the replacement of a command center for the U.S. Strategic Command at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska. If this amount is not authorized for appropriations, DOD will have to stop work halfway through construction, leading to a contract claim, lost time, maybe even lawsuits, but certainly extra work. I can say the same about areas in Maryland, Kentucky, Washington, Texas, and New York. If we look at the construction of aircraft carriers, without the congressional action we have in this bill to update the statutory cap on construction of the CVN-78--the USS Ford, the first aircraft carrier of the Ford class--the Navy will be forced to cease construction of the CVN-78 when it is already 75 percent complete, denying our Nation this critical asset after we have already spent $12 billion on it. We are talking about huge amounts of money. We are talk about defending the United States of America. I hate to think we got here the way we did. We should not have had to do that. There is some blame to go around on both sides, but nonetheless we have been unable to do it the way we have done it in the past. I will tell you something that is kind of interesting. We did a study. We found that in the last 30 years we have never gone into January before. Never. Not once. The two times we went in were after a veto of the bill, and then after that we immediately overrode the veto and we were home free. So this has not happened before. For people to say that it has and that it is not unusual to go into January, factually that is just not true. So we have special operations, and we have land use agreements. This is a big one that will ensure special operations forces have sufficient access to training ranges. The SEALs, the Navy SEALs--I think many of us have been to the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range in California, which serves an indispensable role in training the Navy SEALs for deployment. Failure to adopt the NDAA agreement we are talking about now will result in sending Navy SEALs to combat with insufficient training, undermining mission effectiveness and increasing the risk of losing lives. So we have every reason to be concerned about this. We have only one way that we are going to be able to get a defense authorization bill. If we do not do it, this will be the first year in 52 years that we have not had one. So that is how serious this is. I do not like the way it was done, but I can like the end product. I think the chairman mentioned the sexual assault discussion we have had. We had the Gillibrand amendment, and we had the McCaskill amendment. We did not get a chance to talk about those. But we actually have 27 specific reforms to support victims and encourage sexual assault reporting, expanding it and so forth. So we have done a lot. I do not think anyone can argue that we would in any way be better off not having an authorization bill or just lumping it together and putting it on a clean CR. That is not any way to do business. It does not accomplish any of what I just mentioned and that the chairman mentioned as progress in this bill. With that, I am happy to join the chairman of the committee in a bipartisan way to help try to defend America. The first thing we need to do is to pass our negotiated bill. I yield the floor.