Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Let me mention a couple of others to the Senator from Arizona. His specific question is, What expires on December 31? In addition to the hazard pay that was articulated by the chairman, we also have the reenlistment bonus. I think any of us who have served in the military remember that as you get close to your date of discharge, you make a plan for the future as to what you are going to do in terms of reenlistment. It is all based on assumptions of reenlistment bonuses. If all of a sudden they disappear, you could not have that. What is that going to do to our forces? Impact Aid. Impact aid is something people do not really think about unless they happen to be in an area that has a lot of military activity where people have been taken off the tax rolls. On January 1, impact aid would end. So, yes, there is a lot of concern over this. We talked for a long time about what will happen with this bill in terms of military construction that is partially done or the building of various platforms. But what would actually happen as of January 1 would be really a crisis if we were to have to stop these things.

Mr. INHOFE. Yes. I wish to note that the average time it takes to debate on the floor and to pass the NDAA is 9 days. That is the average over the last 10 years. As I look at the calendar for January, we return on January 6 and we have the CR on January 15. We are going to be spending that time on the CR. Then, of course, we will be faced with the debt ceiling. I don't see that is going to happen. I think it is going to happen in some other way, but it is not going to happen in these reforms. I very much appreciate the Senator from Arizona calling this to attention, that we can't wait until January. It is not going to work. We know it is going to expire December 31. We also know it can't happen in January because there flat isn't time.

Mr. INHOFE. One last comment I wish to make is people listen to us speak on the floor and do not understand the full impact. I carry this card with me. The very top military person in the country, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dempsey, told our committee: 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. He is the No. 1 Chief. The No. 2 Chief is Admiral Winnefeld, who stated that ``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.'' We can't correct all of that with this bill, but we can keep it from getting worse and get back and do what we have done over the last 52 years and pass the NDAA bill. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I wish to honor the life of Patricia E. Grant, a Hall of Fame golfer, a commended veteran, and a woman some have called ``the type of American our country needs to look up to.'' Born March 12, 1921, her family moved to Cushing, OK, where Pat won the Oklahoma State High School Golf Championship as a 13-year old freshman, repeating the win three times before her high school graduation. While attending Oklahoma Baptist University, where she received a scholarship in exchange for teaching golf to fellow students, Pat won the Women's Oklahoma Golf Association State Amateur Championship four times and was the first female to be inducted into the OBU Athletic Hall of Fame. In 1946, she became the only person in history to win the contest 5 years in a row, and even went on to a sixth win in 1949. Ultimately, Pat won golf tournaments all over the world and was inducted into the Women's Oklahoma Golf Hall of Fame in April 2010. When World War II broke out, Pat enlisted in the U.S. Army, alongside her sister Mary Margaret. Pat held many assignments across the globe, including that of assisting the chief legal counsel during the Nuremberg Trials. She received 23 letters of commendation while in the Army, and retired after 22 years of active duty with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel, one of only 60 women to attain the rank at the time. Not quite ready for retirement, Pat earned her law degree in 1966 and practiced family law in Texas for 30 years. She was named Woman of the Year by the Texas Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs in 1972 as a result of her service. After retiring for good in 1995, Pat remained active, playing golf into her 70s, learning how to belly dance, and piloting an ultralight aircraft every Saturday morning. She passed away November 26, 2013, greatly loved by friends and family. Mr. President, I ask that you join me today in celebrating the life of Pat Grant.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator concludes his remarks, we hear from the Senator from Arkansas Mr. Pryor, and that I be recognized after Senator Pryor for such time as I may consume.

Mr. INHOFE. That is not necessary.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, it is my understanding we may have a vote this afternoon. I have often said the most important bill we pass every year--and we have passed every year for the last 52 years--is the National Defense Authorization Act. I would like to say this about the process we have gone through. I do not recall ever having worked with a chairman when I have been in the minority who has been so easy to work with as Chairman Levin has been on this Defense bill. It is one we all understand we have to do. It has to be a reality. A lot of what we do around here we can wait a month and do it. But on this we cannot, because right now we have men and women in the field. We have their paychecks. We have things that have to happen to keep this going as it has in the last few years. Maintenance and modernization are right now. If we were not able to pass this now, our research and development would no longer be able to be there in time to take care of the immediate needs we have. I am very upset about what has happened to our defense system. Under this administration, we have lost $487 billion in Defense--coming out of the hide of Defense. In addition, we are now looking at the sequester. I will only say this, perhaps for the last time: Why should our defense system, which is only accountable for 18 percent of the budget, be responsible for 50 percent of the cuts? It is because this administration is determined that is what is going to happen to the military. So now we have people such as General Odierno, Commanding General of the U.S. Army, who said: . . . lowest readiness levels I have seen within our Army since I have been serving for the last 37 years. Only two brigades are ready for combat. Admiral Greenert, the CNO of the Navy: . . . because of the fiscal limitations and the situation we are in, we do not have another strike group trained and ready to respond on short notice in case of contingency. We are tapped out. Admiral Winnefeld is the No. 2 guy in the military system. He is the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He said: There could be, for the first time in my career, instances where we may be asked to respond to a crisis and we have to say we cannot. I have given a lot of talks on the floor about how serious things are right now. Put the readiness chart up there. I would only comment to this. A lot of people think there is an easier answer for this, and that we can, through efficiencies in the Pentagon, take care of these problems. A lot of work needs to be done. My junior Senator certainly is going to be concentrating on that, on the efficiencies. However, if all of the efficiencies were granted, that is only the blue line on this chart. This chart talks about sequestration, if nothing changes, what is going to happen to our military. We have that. The next one up there, the next larger, is force structure. We are talking about how many brigades, how many boots on the ground, how many ships, what it is going to look like. The next one up there is modernization. Modernization is a very small line. Here is the big one over here. That is our ability to fight a war. That is our readiness. If you look down here at the bottom at fiscal years 2014 and 2015, you can see all of that is going to be gutted in the first 2 years if we do not make a change in it. I tried to do that. I have an amendment. I still have an amendment that is out there that could correct that situation. I think it is important for people to understand that the readiness is going to be hurt more. This is after $487 billion has been cut from our defense system. General Amos, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, who testified under oath, said: We will have fewer forces arriving, less-trained, arriving late in the fight. This would delay the buildup of combat power, allow the enemy more time to build its defenses, and would likely prolong combat operations. Altogether, this is a formula for American casualties. It gets back to that orange line up there. The orange line is when you do that, you have to accept a greater risk. That means American lives. I have already given that speech. Right now we are getting close to the time when we are going to be actually casting a vote. I think I have kind of good news. Hopefully it is good news. I made a statement yesterday that the problem the Republicans have is they have not been able to get amendments in. We have gone through this in years past, and always something has broken loose where we are able to have amendments. Well, up until yesterday, the Republicans had 81 amendments that we wanted to be considered. Frankly, that is not all that uncontrollable. That could have been done. We could have still gotten through that this week. But as it is right now--the good news is, I said yesterday on the floor that I was going to come in and try to work all night long, and the staff has done this, to come up with 25 amendments and say: If we, the Republicans, can have 25 amendments to be considered, they can be voted down, but just to be considered on the floor, that we would be receptive to having the results. Here is the interesting thing about it. We have heard a lot of people talking about, well, why is it all of a sudden this has to be done in 5 days? Yet we have been sitting around here for 3 months when we could have been considering it. I would like to suggest, if you look at this, this is every year how many days it has taken for consideration. It is always more than what we have for the rest of this week. I only say that, because in spite of that, we still have a way of doing it. For those who might think that the recorded votes we are requesting-- it is not going to be that many votes. We are asking for 25 on the Republican side. Democrats have 25. That is 50. But if you look at years past--for example, last year we had total amendments offered of 106, but only 34 were voice voted, only 8 required a recorded vote. I can go back to all of the rest of the years that are on this chart. But the bottom line is this: What I am asking for today is 25 for the Republicans, 25 for the Democrats. Of those, not more than 15 to 20 would require votes. We could do that in 1 day. So it can be done. We could finish this and still give Republicans the opportunity to have their votes. What I have here is a list of the 25 amendments we are asking for. Again, I am not even for all 25 of them, but they should all be considered one way or another. This probably would end up requiring maybe at the most 10 votes. So I am offering these amendments and telling the majority--by the way, I have already talked about what a great relationship I have had during this consideration as the ranking member of Armed Services with the chairman Carl Levin. So I am offering to Carl Levin and to the Democrats, the majority in the Senate and the majority on the committee, these 25 amendments. All we are asking for is for those 25 to be considered. We can do this bill right, the way we have done it for 52 years. We can have a bill. We can have it by the end of this week. So I am offering that. I also announced yesterday that in the event I can come up with a total number of 25 that our caucus would agree with, that if we could do that and we were refused, when the time comes I will vote against going to the bill. Now I think that very likely could happen this afternoon. However, if they accept them, I am committing right here on the floor that I will be in full support and I will vote for it. I want people to understand, in the unlikely event that the majority does not accept these--the consideration of these 25 votes, I will be voting against cloture on the bill when that vote comes up. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, let me first repeat, as I have many times, I have never worked with a manager more closely than the chairman of the Armed Services Committee Senator Levin. We worked very hard through a lot of issues. On the few where we disagreed with each other, we have handled it in a very civil way. We both want a bill and we will have one. The problem we have on the Republican side is we have not had a chance to have amendments. I don't have the charts in here, but earlier this morning I had charts here to show historically every time this comes up, we have a number of amendments that the minority has--whether the minority happens to be the Democrats or Republicans. All we want to do is to consider these amendments. Yesterday I said I don't think we will be able to do it, but I am going to attempt to come today--or yesterday, I said tomorrow--with 25 amendments that all of the Republicans have said they would not object to and we would say these are the ones we would like to have considered. Of those, assuming the Democrats had 25 also, the most we would have up for consideration would be maybe 20, probably less than that, because historically that is the way it is. I have given the majority the 25 amendments we would like to have considered, and I made the statement yesterday--and I want to repeat it today--that now that we have agreed on a list, if we can have these amendments considered on the floor, then I would be a very strong supporter of this bill. However, after going through the work of coming down to these amendments--and that is not an easy thing to do--if we are rejected and we are not going to be able to have consideration of these 25 amendments, I would vote in opposition to cloture to go to the bill.

Mr. INHOFE. Would the Chairman yield?

Mr. INHOFE. Parliamentary inquiry? We were to be given equal time for the last 10 minutes. I had 3 minutes. All I want to do is ask a question. Am I entitled to do that?

Mr. INHOFE. Everything my Chairman has said I agree with. He is making my speech for me. It is critical we get the bill. All I am saying is I made the statement yesterday that Republicans are entitled to some amendments. I am asking now--we were able to get it down to 25 amendments to be considered. Will the majority consider these 25 amendments which can be done in half a day? Would he consider that?

Mr. INHOFE. I said 25 amendments. This is our list. You come up with your list.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I agree with the comments of the Senator from Nebraska. I have to say I was a little disturbed because I have heard a couple of reports--one was in a news conference on November 6 and one on November 19--yesterday, I guess--that Senator Gillibrand was saying that I was objecting to her amendment. Yes, I oppose her amendment but not to the extent that I would hold back the bill. My gosh, there is no one on the floor of this Senate who has been working harder to get this bill through--no two people more than the chairman and me. So I want to make sure people understand that. In terms of the alternative, I have been watching it very closely, and my strongest possible support is for that amendment, No. 2170, offered by Senators Ayotte and McCaskill, which provides additional enhancements to the historic enhancements for sexual assault prevention and response activities in our military. I commend my two colleagues on the Armed Services Committee for their tireless efforts and their leadership, and I urge all Senators to join me in supporting this amendment. It doesn't mean that if someone is opposed to the Gillibrand amendment, that someone is not wanting change. Yes, we do. This is major change. It adds the senior trial counsel to the officers who make recommendations on whether to proceed to trial and, if the convening authority decides not to proceed, results in the case being referred to the service Secretary. It adds duties for the special victims' counsel to inform victims of options for military and civilian prosecution of sexual offenses. It gives them a voice. They can express a preference. It requires commanders to give weight to that preference and to notify the victims if the civilians decline prosecution. These are changes. These are changes in the current system that are coming with the amendment offered by Senators Ayotte and McCaskill, amendment No. 2170. It requires including written performance appraisals of every member of the Armed Forces--officers and enlisted people--an assessment of that member's support for sexual assault prevention and response programs. It requires every commander to be evaluated in their performance appraisals on whether they have or have not established a command climate where allegations of sexual assault are properly managed and fairly evaluated and ensures that a victim can report sexual assaults without fear of retaliation, ostracism, or any kind of group pressure from members of the command. It also requires command climate assessments to be performed after a sexual assault incident, with copies of that assessment to be provided to superiors in the chain of command and the military criminal investigation organization. It creates, finally, a process through the boards for correction of military records for confidential review of discharges of individuals who were victims of sexual offenses, to require consideration of psychological and physical aspects of the victim's experience that may have had a bearing on the separation. So this is a major change. It is one I strongly support. I give the Senator from New York the benefit of the doubt that she did not mean what some people would interpret it to mean--that I would hold up a bill in opposing her amendment. I certainly would not do that. I am for reform, and we have an opportunity to do that which is bipartisan and accomplishes the very thing we should have accomplished many years ago. I thought there were others waiting here, but let me make one comment. I agree with my colleague, the junior Senator from Oklahoma. I know he has worked tirelessly in trying to do something to stop waste in the Pentagon, and, quite frankly, I think there is some there. This chart shows the devastation of sequestration. What it shows is the bottom line--these are deficiencies. This is what he is talking about. I want my colleagues to see this because this goes from fiscal year 2014 all the way to 2023. If we take the sequestration as it is right now, without any adjustments--now, Senator Sessions, Senator McCain, and I have tried to make adjustments so that there are greater cutbacks here and not so many in the first 2 years. The orange--and that is where almost everything comes out--represents readiness. That is readiness. Readiness is what we need to support our fighters in the field to save lives. The green is modernization. That is not affected by these inefficiencies we are talking about. The force structure is a major cost item, and it is demonstrated by the yellow on the chart. So what I am saying is I know there is room for improvement, and I want Senator Coburn and others to work on areas within the Pentagon where money can be saved. But if that happens, it is still going to all be found down here--everything. TRICARE and all of it is down in this blue line. So we can see that the devastation that comes from sequestration to our military is still going to take place. I think if we look at the level there of the sequestration cuts that take place, it is almost entirely in the readiness. ``Readiness'' is a term we have used for a long time. That is our ability to save lives. That is our ability to train and equip our men and women in harm's way. We have testimony right now that I wish to share with my good friend and the Chair, who was there and heard it, from all four services talking about how much more risk is involved if we have to go through sequestration. Risk equals lives. I agree with those who want to do all they can through efficiencies. I am for them. I will do all I can to help them. That doesn't solve the problem. The problem is immediate. It is today. I still believe there should be something we can do to stop draconian cuts in our readiness and our force structure accounts that would come with sequestration. It wouldn't do me any good to read all of the quotes we have from various individuals, but I can assure my colleagues that the Chair and anyone who sat through the Armed Services Committee hearings has heard all four of the chiefs talk about how devastating this will be if we are not able to correct this. With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would ask the leader if he would amend his request to add the following language: Following the disposition of the McCaskill-Ayotte amendment, all pending amendments be withdrawn and the Republican manager, or his designee, be recognized to offer the next amendment in order, followed by an amendment offered by the majority side, and that the two sides continue offering amendments in alternating fashion until all amendments are disposed of.

Mr. INHOFE. I reserve the right to object.

Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. INHOFE. I think when we are going through an exercise like this there are some people who want to have their program placed on a must- pass bill in order to get something through. The junior Senator from Oklahoma made it very clear that he is talking about something he feels is relevant to the defense of this country, and I think that sounds reasonable. What I would like to suggest to the majority leader and to my very good friend with whom I have worked for many years, the chairman of the committee Senator Levin, is that we can qualify and work on a UC which would either use the words germane, relevant or related, in some way so that those amendments--which have nothing to do with defending America--might be able to be considered in some form, maybe a limited form. I would like to be able to sit down and see if something like that can be worked out before giving up.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this has been a long process and a difficult one for me to go through. Being the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee, I have had constant contact with both the Democrats and Republicans on this bill. I consider this bill to be the most important bill of the year, and I have said that several times. I have given several speeches up here in the last week. I had about decided with the last offer that was made by our side, which was to come up with 50 amendments, limit it to 50 amendments, the argument there is that would not be 50 votes. If you look at it historically-- and I have the numbers going all the way back for the last 15 years-- for last year, for example, we had 106 amendments, and only 34 were voice-voted and only 8 were recorded votes. So when we say 50, we are only talking about probably 20. Now, of course, the Democrats would only have 50 also. So what I have decided I am going to do--because I have to decide what I am going to do with my vote--I am either going to vote for or against cloture on my own bill. That would be very awkward for me to have to determine. But I have tried to get ahold of Senator Pat Toomey, who is kind of the lead person on the steering committee and the one where most of the amendments would come from, most of the objections have come from. I have said: If you will pare that down from 50 to 25, then I am sure it would be reasonable for the Democrats to have 25. That is a total of 50. Probably it would end up being maybe 20 recorded votes if you, our Republicans, are willing to bring that number down and say: Yes, we will go forward with this bill if we can have 25--move it down from 50 to 25. Now, if we refuse to do that, I am going to go ahead and vote to support cloture and to support our bill. On the other hand, if Senator Toomey and the rest of the Republicans say: No, we want to have all 50--and I look at this list, and I see we have some Members who have as many as 9, and I do not think that is being totally reasonable--so if they say: No, we are not going to bring our number down to 25, then I am going to support the bill. However, if they do agree to bring it down--and I have already talked to the majority side about this--and they refuse to come down to 25, then I would join in opposing cloture on the bill when it comes up. So I want to make sure there is no misunderstanding right now. I would like to say that I could get ahold of everyone tonight. I have tried. They said at 7:30 they are going to make a decision. It is 7:29 now, so I had to get on record. I do not have time. I will repeat it one more time. If the Republicans refuse to bring their number down to 25, then I will go ahead and support the bill and support passage of the bill through cloture. If they do agree to do it and the Democratic side, the majority side, decides they are not going to accept the 25 offer, then I will oppose and vote against cloture on the bill. There you have it. Thank you, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, with November being National Adoption Month and this Saturday being National Adoption Day, I would like to take a moment to highlight the issue of adoption--an issue that is near and dear to my heart. Earlier this month Senator Landrieu and I introduced our annual National Adoption Day and Month Resolution which was agreed to on November 13 by unanimous consent. The importance of family in the growth and development of a child can never be overstated. There are millions of children worldwide who are growing up without the love and support of a family. It is my hope that through National Adoption Day and our work on the Congressional Coalition on Adoption, we can one day make the dream of every child having a permanent and loving family a reality. Like Senator Landrieu, I have seen first-hand the many blessings that come from the adoption of a child. My daughter Molly adopted my granddaughter, Zegita Marie, from an orphanage in Ethiopia. Z-girl, as I like to call her, is such a smart and confident young girl and I know it is because of the support and love of her family she is able to thrive. More so, Z-girl has been a huge blessing to our family and one that I am forever grateful for. National Adoption Month is about recognizing those who have made the sacrifices to make a child's life better, and encouraging those who are thinking about adopting to take that step and make a real difference in a child's life. In that spirit, I want to take a moment to recognize a young woman that has taken the step to be a difference in a child's life. As many of my colleagues know, each October the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute hosts its annual Angels in Adoption Gala here in Washington. Every year Senators and Representatives nominate an individual or a family who has made a significant difference in the area of adoption and foster care, and I have had the honor of nominating individuals from my home State of Oklahoma. Unfortunately, circumstances did not allow my nominee, Kate Arnold of Oklahoma City, to come to the event, so I would like to take a moment to recognize her and share her wonderful story. In 2003, Kate Arnold was volunteering at a San Francisco Bay Area home for teenage mothers when she met Miriam, a mother to 2 boys. Over the course of years Kate developed a relationship with Miriam, her boys, and a daughter born during that time. Kate became a constant presence in their lives, frequently taking the children out for the day or overnight, while Miriam struggled to care for them. In March of 2011, Child Protective Services removed Miriam's children from her care and over the next several months Miriam continued her struggle with addiction. In October of that year, a social worker asked her to name who her children should go to if she lost them permanently. Miriam named Kate. At the time Kate was here in D.C. attending Georgetown University School of Medicine. However, she did not let that stop her and immediately petitioned Georgetown for the ability to complete her fourth year of medical school in California so that she could become the children's foster parent and begin adoption proceedings. In July 2012, Kate returned to California and by August the children were living with her. This year she graduated from Georgetown and the family moved to Oklahoma City so Kate could begin her residency at the University of Oklahoma. Kate reflects the spirit of National Adoption Month and Day, not only in her decision to foster and adopt Miriam's children but also through years of prior work and commitment to the foster care community. Kate is a great example of what one person can do to become a blessing to the millions of children throughout the world that are in need of a family. I hope that others will join Senator Landrieu and myself this month of November and recognize the great need that exists for families to open their arms to children, both here in the United States and abroad, and take the leap of faith that will change a child's life.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I think everyone is aware that we have a lot of differences on both sides of the aisle. Quite frankly, I just had a meeting with some of the House people. There are some problems right now. I am anxious for Chairman Levin to come back, perhaps after our conferences, and I will do the same thing, and hopefully we will be able to do it. I understand there has already been a statement made about the Ayotte amendment on Guantanamo. She is ready to debate, and I think Senator Levin has a side-by-side amendment he is ready to debate as well. So that, in my opinion, is about as far as we have come as far as progress. I will withhold any other comments I will make until the chair has made his comments, which will probably be after lunch. By the way, I ask our Members to continue to file all amendments they have in anticipation that we will, as we have in the past, ultimately come to that conclusion, that we will have amendments.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, first of all, let me say I appreciate all the help the chairman has given us during the course of this very difficult time. I also suggest we have gone through this same thing other years in the past. One of the things is there are so many people demanding or wanting to have a system where we could have more amendments. I encourage anyone who has amendments to go ahead and send them to the floor. It doesn't do any good to talk about them unless you have them down here and in front of us. Then I hope the chairman and I could get together and we could have, actually, more amendments. Those people who want to be heard on this, we have adopted this timing, so we encourage you to come down and be heard. I yield the floor.