Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. In our letter, written as Prime Minister Malaki was visiting Washington, we supported an increase in support for Iraq's counterterrorism efforts. But we made clear that the Iraqi Government must provide a practical plan for using such aid and provide assurances relative to whom advanced weapons would be used against. We wrote President Obama as follows: It is in our national security interest to enhance the effectiveness of Iraq's security forces, especially through greater intelligence sharing. However . . . we must see more evidence from Prime Minister Maliki that U.S. security assistance and arms sales are part of a comprehensive Iraqi strategy that addresses the political sources of the current violence and seeks to bring lasting peace to the country. We further wrote: This leads us to the final and most important point that we urge you to stress with Prime Minister Maliki: If he devises and implements a real governance strategy for Iraq, the United States is ready to provide the appropriate support to help that strategy succeed. And: If Prime Minister Maliki continues to marginalize the Kurds, alienate many Shia, and treat large numbers of Sunnis as terrorists, no amount of security assistance will be able to bring stability and security to Iraq. It is a tragedy for the Iraqi people and a real security concern for the United States that Prime Minister Maliki has yet to produce a strategy for broadly based governance in Iraq. We should not forget the 2011 withdrawal date for American troops from Iraq was negotiated by President Bush. We should not forget the decision to reject an ongoing U.S. troop presence after 2011 was Iraq's, because of Iraq's refusal to assure us that our troops would have protections from Iraqi courts and prosecution. We should not forget that our military leaders supported the decision not to leave our troops in Iraq without legal protections from Iraqi prosecution. We should not forget that while an ongoing relationship is in our interests, no amount of military equipment from us will protect the Iraqi people if their government continues to place sectarian goals ahead of sound governance. So we should use opportunities to assist Iraq in its struggle against violent extremism and for stability and security, but Iraq's fate ultimately rests with its people and their leaders. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Objection.

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

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

Mr. LEVIN. Let me try in 5 minutes to encapsulate what is in the bill and why we are where we are. The bill includes numerous provisions, as the Presiding Officer knows, to sustain the compensation and quality of life of our service men and women and their families--the quality of life they deserve as they face the hardships that are imposed by continuing military operations around the world. In just a few of these provisions are 30 types of bonuses and special pay, $25 million for supplemental impact aid to local education agencies with military dependent children, money to assist the Department of Defense in assisting veterans in their transition to civilian life, provisions for the Special Operations Command at $9 billion, $1 billion for counter-IED efforts, a provision to require the Department of Defense to streamline the Department of Defense management headquarters at all levels by changing or reducing the size of staffs and eliminating tiers of management, cutting functions that provide little or no added value, and a new land withdrawal provision that the Marine Corps has been working so hard on at 29 Palms, CA. This is the No. 1 legislative priority of the Marine Corps. The Commandant explained to us that the Marine Corps has spent 6 years analyzing and preparing for this expansion so the Corps can meet its minimum training criteria. As General Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told us a few weeks ago, the authorities in this Defense bill ``are critical to the Nation's defense and are urgently needed to ensure we keep faith with the men and women, military and civilians, selflessly serving in our armed forces.'' Relative to the question of amendments which has been raised, we tried when this bill came to the floor to get consent to have amendments relate to the Defense authorization bill and we were unable to get that consent. We tried to get consent to adopt almost 40 cleared amendments as a managers' package. We could not get consent to do that. We asked to lock in 13 additional amendments for votes on both sides of the aisle, but equally divided, without prejudice as to further amendments that could be brought up but, again, there was objection. Now, at this point, here is where we are. With the House of Representatives having left for the year, the only way we are going to get a defense bill enacted is by passing the bill before us as it stands. If it is amended, the bill would have to go back to the House of Representatives and the result would be we would get nothing enacted, killing both amendments as well as the bill itself. It would put the Defense authorization bill in limbo. We have never done that. We have faced situations similar to this 2 years of the prior 5. We have always managed to pass a National Defense Authorization Act for 51 straight years. We followed the process in 2 of those last 5 years, which is not dissimilar to this process which we are following this year. Does that make this the best way to proceed? No. It is not the best way to proceed. But that is not the choice we face. Our troops and their families and our Nation's security deserve a defense bill. The bill before us is right for our troops, for their families, for our Nation's security, and it was produced in a bipartisan manner. Senator Inhofe, my ranking member, is here, and I think he will attest to the fact that we adopted dozens of amendments in our committee work on a bipartisan basis. This bill deserves a strong bipartisan vote of the Senate today, but to do that the motion to table, which I understand is about to be made, needs to be defeated. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. I will be happy to yield.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Well, the sexual assault amendments which were pending, as my good friend from Arizona knows, were debated. There are about 20- plus sexual assault amendments that are in the bill so it makes major advances in that area. In terms of the two amendments that I think the Senator is referring to--the amendments of Senator McCaskill and Senator Gillibrand--there was about a day-long debate on those, and there was an effort to vote on them. I think everybody wanted to vote on those two amendments, but there was objection to it. In terms of what I believe the Senator is driving at, there was a time--I think it was in 2011 or 2012--when a Defense authorization bill was, in fact, adopted by unanimous consent. I think there was no debate on the bill that was finally adopted. Having said that, I happen to agree this is not the ideal way to adopt a defense bill. I have said that over and over. And I have pointed out the way in which we tried to at least get some amendments adopted, including about 30 that had been agreed to and had been cleared, but we couldn't even get those added. Now, with Senator Inhofe's help, we were able to get much of the material in those amendments that were worked out between us and the House leaders so that they are in this bill; not all of the amendments that had been cleared but many of them. But I happen to agree with my friends, this is not the ideal way to proceed. But we are now where we are, and if we simply reopen this bill and do not adopt it the way it is, it then has to go back to the House of Representatives, and then there would not be a defense bill, with all of the then-problems that would be created for our troops and their families. So this is the best we can do, but it is not ideal.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, 2013 marks a significant milestone for a dynamic company based in Detroit, MI. It is the 75th anniversary of the founding of Detroit Diesel. Detroit enjoys a rich automotive heritage and has been a hub of innovation and manufacturing for generations. Many companies throughout the State have contributed to this impressive legacy. One of those companies is Detroit Diesel, and I am proud to recognize this innovative company here today. Founded in 1938, Detroit Diesel has emerged as a leader in the heavy- truck engine industry and an important contributor to Michigan's economy. What began as a company focused on producing engines for the Allied Forces in World War II has expanded through the years to include an array of products used in a number of sectors. Detroit Diesel has a well-earned reputation for quality, has championed a number of technological breakthroughs in the manufacturing industry and is a committed community partner. These accomplishments are a tribute to the many hard-working people that make their success possible year after year. And I have witnessed firsthand some of the cutting edge technologies Detroit Diesel has pioneered. Demand Performance is Detroit Diesel's hallmark, and they have achieved this in their product development and in the community. With a workforce of more than 2,000 in the city of Detroit, Detroit Diesel is a wonderful example of what is possible through cooperation and economic opportunities. This is evident in the announcement last fall of a $120 million capital investment by Detroit Diesel. This investment brings greater hope and new possibilities for the company and the city. It is also evident in their commitment to the community through their many charitable activities focused on helping families, protecting and improving the environment, and assisting various educational endeavors. During its 75 years of existence, Detroit Diesel has made a significant contribution to Michigan's economy. As a lifelong Detroit resident, I am keenly aware of how business development helps to create and sustain jobs, to stabilize neighborhoods and to build the middle class. I commend Detroit Diesel for their entrepreneurial spirit and for their high quality products. I wish them the best as they continue to forge ahead, create jobs and innovate.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the bill we are about to vote on is a good bill. It is the product of an extensive bipartisan, bicameral agreement between the Armed Services Committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives. We have passed a defense bill every year for the last 51 years. This bill deserves to be the 52nd because, like our previous bills, it does the right thing for our troops, their families, and our Nation's security. It passed the House with a vote of 350 to 69, and it deserves an equally strong bipartisan vote in the Senate tonight. Yesterday I praised the members of our committee, and I also noted the amazing work of our staff, and I am not going to repeat that. This bill is not a Christmas gift to our troops and their families. Authorizing funding for our troops, supporting our troops and their families is what we owe them. It is the least we can do, for they are the gift--they are the gift to this country, to this Nation, and to all of its people. I would like to describe some of the many important provisions in this bill. The bill includes numerous provisions to sustain the compensation and quality of life that our service men and women and their families deserve as they face the hardships imposed by continuing military operations around the world. For example, our bill reauthorizes over 30 types of bonuses and special pays aimed at encouraging enlistment, re- enlistment, and continued service by Active Duty and Reserve component military personnel. It authorizes $25 million in supplemental impact aid to local educational agencies with military dependent children and $5 million in impact aid for schools with military dependent children with severe disabilities. It enhances DOD programs to assist veterans in their transition to civilian life and increase their opportunities for early employment by improving access to credentialing programs for civilian occupational specialties. It requires the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to ensure that the electronic health records systems of the two Departments are interoperable and provide a single integrated display of data. The bill also includes funding needed to provide our troops the equipment and support that they need for ongoing combat, counterinsurgency, and stability operations around the world. For example, our bill authorizes $9.9 billion for U.S. Special Operations Command, including both base budget funding and OCO funding. It authorizes nearly $1 billion for counter-IED efforts, beginning to ramp down expenditures in this area, while ensuring that we make investments needed to protect our forces from roadside bombs. It provides $6.2 billion in funding to train and equip the Afghan National Army and Afghan Police, as requested by the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, so that we can complete the transition of security responsibility, as planned, by the end of 2014. It authorizes the Secretary of Defense--upon a determination from the President that it is in the national security interests of the United States--to use up to $150 million of amounts authorized for the Coalition Support Fund account in fiscal years 2013 and 2014 to support the border security operations of the Jordanian Armed Forces. It extends global train and equip--section ``1206''--authority through 2017 to help build the capacity of foreign force partners to conduct counterterrorism and stability operations. The bill includes a compromise on Guantanamo, which eases the transfer of Gitmo detainees overseas, while retaining prohibitions on transfers to the United States. It includes 36 provisions to strengthen DOD's response to the problem of sexual assault in our military. The bill includes hundreds of other important provisions to ensure that the Department can carry out its essential national defense missions. For example, Section 121 of the bill increases the cost cap for the Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier program as requested by the Department of Defense and tightens cost controls on the program. In the absence of this provision, DOD would have to stop work on the aircraft carrier, resulting in the layoff of thousands of workers and an additional cost of up to $1 billion dollars on the Ford and subsequent ships. Section 352 of the bill requires DOD to eliminate the development and fielding of service-specific combat and camouflage utility uniforms and instead move to combat and camouflage uniforms that are used by all members of the Armed Forces. This provision addresses a finding by GAO that identified DOD's fragmented approach to developing and acquiring combat uniforms as a significant source of duplication and waste in the Department. Section 904 of the bill requires the Secretary of Defense to streamline DOD management headquarters at all levels by changing or reducing the size of staffs, eliminating tiers of management, cutting functions that provide little or no added value, and consolidating overlapping and duplicative programs and offices. We expect this provision to save $40 billion or more over the next 10 years. Section 1024 of the bill allows the Secretary of the Navy to settle 20-year old litigation arising from the default termination of the contract for the production of the A-12 aircraft. Under the proposed settlement authorized by this provision the Navy will receive ships and aircraft worth almost $400 million at no cost to the government. Section 1098 of the bill authorizes the Department of Defense to transfer unneeded aircraft to the Forest Service, providing the Forest Service with much-needed replacements for aging wildfire suppression aircraft. This provision was based on a Senate floor amendment which we were unable to adopt even though it had been cleared on both sides. Section 1302 of the bill authorizes the use of funds available under the Cooperative Threat Reduction--CTR--program to eliminate Syrian chemical weapons. This provision will give DOD the funding flexibility that it says it needs to carry out the destruction of these dangerous weapons, as provided by our agreements with the Russians and others. Section 2807 of the bill requires that all future military construction projects funded using in-kind payments from partner nations under an international agreement be submitted for congressional authorization. That may not sound like a big deal, but this provision is the result of a yearlong investigation by the committee staff, in which we learned that DOD was using in-kind payments from our allies to fund questionable military construction projects without appropriate oversight. Section 2941 through 2946 of the bill authorize a new land withdrawal to expand the Marine Corps training range at 29 Palms in California. This provision was the No. 1 legislative priority of the Marine Corps this year. As the Commandant of the Marine Corps explained in an August 29 letter to the committee, the Marine Corps has spent more than 6 years analyzing and preparing for this expansion to ensure that the Corps can meet its minimum training criteria for live fire and maneuver training. The Commandant's letter explains: Although Twentynine Palms has served the Marine Corps well since the 1940s, it is currently inadequate to properly train our Marine Palms is my top legislative priority. Successful MEB training requires coordinated simultaneous air and ground live fire in concert with ground maneuvers over a 48-72 hour period involving 15,000 Marines. Although a MEB is our principal fighting force, we currently lack sufficient training space to train a MEB-sized unit. The Marine Corps proposes to correct this training and readiness shortfall by expanding Twentynine Palms through the withdrawal and acquisition of 168,000 acres in the Johnson Valley area. These are just a few examples drawn from hundreds of provisions in this bill. As Gen Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told us last week, the authorities included in this bill ``are critical to the Nation's defense and urgently needed to ensure we all keep faith with the men and women, military and civilian, selflessly serving in our Armed Forces.'' I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in comparison to recent battles this Congress has fought over the budget, the legislation we consider today represents progress. Instead of government by crisis and hostage- taking, we have before us an agreement negotiated by the Senator Murray, a Democrat, and Congressman Ryan, a Republican, a negotiation in which neither side got all that it wanted, but both sides found acceptable middle ground. That is not a common event around here these days. Significantly, by reaching agreement, they have offered us a way to avoid a potential government shutdown in 2014. And they have provided a way to offer some relief from the damaging impact of sequestration. So I will support this agreement. But I will not do so without reservation. Despite what it offers, this budget agreement falls short of what I believe we need to accomplish in three significant ways. First, while the agreement provides some modest relief, it leaves more than half of the irrational meat-ax cuts of sequestration in place over 2 years. As a result, important programs to protect and promote national security, public safety, health, transportation, education, and the environment will remain under-funded. A balanced package that included measures I have recommended to close loopholes that allow profitable corporations to avoid taxes by sending their revenue and assets to offshore tax havens would, if passed, do far more to address these problems. Second, this agreement does not include an extension of emergency unemployment benefits for 1.3 million people. Those benefits end in less than 2 weeks. Failure to extend these benefits would mean more than 43,000 workers in my state of Michigan would lose unemployment benefits at year's end. In the first 6 months of 2014, more than 86,000 additional Michigan workers would also lose benefits if we fail to act. This is both cruel and economically self-defeating. At a time when job creation remains slower than any of us want, and when nationwide there are roughly three job seekers for every available job opening, removing the safety net that keeps families from falling into despair is unjust. And the reduced economic activity that will result will cost thousands of jobs, making our economic recovery even slower. The Republican refusal to include extended unemployment benefits in this legislation is deeply disappointing. Majority Leader Reid has expressed determination to take up an unemployment benefit extension bill in January. It is essential that we do so. Third, the agreement includes a provision that would reduce cost-of- living adjustments for working-age military retirees. This is a troubling provision because it singles out a group of veterans, and therefore I have decided the Senate Armed Services Committee will review the retirement benefit changes next year, before they take effect in 2015. This proposal is yet more evidence of the fact that the only fair solution to the sequestration problem is a balanced, comprehensive deficit-reduction agreement. The major impediment to such an agreement has been the inability of some in Congress to accept the necessity of real additional revenue, such as closing tax loopholes used by highly profitable corporations to avoid paying taxes by transferring assets and revenue to subsidiaries in offshore tax havens. These shortcomings in the budget legislation before us are significant, but nonetheless this legislation does offer important benefits. The sequestration relief, though smaller than many of us would like, is significant. Over the course of the last year, the Armed Services Committee has repeatedly heard from our senior military and civilian defense leaders that the rigidity and extent of the sequestration puts the security of our Nation and the lives of our troops at risk. Sequestration has also shut Head Start classrooms, labs researching cures to life-threatening diseases, and clinics providing health care to the needy and elderly, among many unwise effects. Again, this legislation offers the only available way out of the cycle of crisis that brought us a damaging government shutdown in November. That shutdown was extraordinarily disturbing to every American who expects Government to operate without the constant threat of shutting down. So on balance I support this legislation because of the modest positive changes it makes from the status quo, and in the hope that this is the first step toward a more comprehensive and more balanced deficit-reduction agreement to replace the rest of sequestration. This agreement likely represents as much progress as we realistically can make in the absence of a balanced, comprehensive budget agreement. Again, the major stumbling block that prevents us from reaching such an agreement is the reluctance of so many Republicans to consider additional revenue, particularly the substantial revenue available to us through closing unjustified tax loopholes. It is essential that we spend the coming weeks and months working toward a better, more balanced, fairer, more comprehensive solution.

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join Senator Inhofe, the ranking Republican on our committee, in bringing to the floor the agreement between the Armed Services Committees of the Senate and the House on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. The House passed this bill last week with a vote of 350 to 69, and if we pass it in the Senate, which I am optimistic now that we will, it will mark the 53rd year in a row we have enacted this bill that is so essential to the defense of our Nation and to our men and women in uniform and their families. I wish to thank all of the members of the Armed Services Committee and our staffs. I especially want to thank our subcommittee chairs and ranking members for the hard work they have done to get us to the finish line on this bill. Of course, I thank Senator Inhofe for the close partnership we have had in leading this committee. We have both had the benefit of a strong relationship with the chairman and ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, Buck McKeon and Adam Smith, in our endeavor. I share the disappointment of Senators with our inability to vote on more amendments when our committee bill was brought to the Senate floor a few weeks ago. Senator Inhofe and I spent a week on the Senate floor before Thanksgiving trying to bring up more amendments and to have them debated and voted on. We tried to reach agreement to limit consideration to defense-related amendments, but we were unable to do that. We tried to consent to vote on two sexual assault amendments, the Gillibrand amendment and the McCaskill amendment, which had been fully debated, but we could not get consent to do that. We tried to get consent to adopt a package of 39 amendments that had been cleared on both sides, but we were unable to do even that. It then became clear, given the Senate schedule, that our only hope of enacting a defense bill this year was to negotiate a new bill with the House Armed Services Committee on the basis of two bills: one that was reported out of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and, two, the bill that was passed by the House of Representatives, and then we decided we would seek enactment of a new bill in both Houses. That new bill passed the House without amendment. If we fail to pass the same bill, there will be no National Defense Authorization Act this year, with the result being we would deny the Department of Defense vital authorities, we would undermine congressional oversight of the military, and we would fail in our duty to provide our men and women in uniform the support they need and deserve. The bill before us is not a Democratic bill and it is not a Republican bill. It is a bipartisan, bicameral defense bill. It is a good bill and one that deserved the strong support it received in the House of Representatives and that I hope will receive a strong vote in the Senate tomorrow. The bill includes hundreds of important provisions to ensure that the Department can carry out its essential national defense missions. Here are just a few examples: Our bill extends the Department of Defense authority to pay out combat pay and hardship duty pay. The bill extends supplemental impact aid to help local school districts educate military children. The bill extends existing military land withdrawals at China Lake, Chocolate Mountain, and Limestone Hills that would otherwise expire, leaving the military without critical testing and training capabilities. The bill includes a new land withdrawal, which is critical to the Marines, to expand its training area at 29 Palms. Our bill provides needed funding for the destruction of the Syrian chemical weapons stockpile and for efforts of the Jordanian Armed Forces to secure that country's border with Syria. Our bill enables the Department of Defense to save more than $1 billion by authorizing a number of multiyear contracts. Our bill includes more than 30 provisions, as our Presiding Officer well knows, to address the problem of sexual assault in the military. For example, we provide every military sexual assault survivor a special victim's counsel--a lawyer who works not for commanders, not for prosecutors or defense attorneys or a court but for the victim. We include strong new protections for survivors, for those people who have been victims, making it a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice to retaliate against a servicemember who reports a sexual assault and requiring that the Department of Defense inspector general review and investigate any allegation of such retaliation. Our bill requires that commanders who become aware of a reported sexual assault immediately forward that information to criminal investigators. Our bill ends the ability of commanders to modify findings and convictions for sexual assaults and other serious crimes. Our bill provides that any decision by a commander not to prosecute a sexual assault complaint undergoes an automatic review by a higher command authority, which in nearly all cases would mean a general or a flag officer. Our bill includes the Boxer amendment to make the article 32 process more like a grand jury proceeding in which the purpose is to determine probable cause rather than the current process which is used as a discovery tool by the defense. While this change is not limited to sexual assault cases, it will mean the victim of a sexual assault will not have to appear in person and be subjected to cross-examination by the defense. As Senators are aware, we were unable to vote on either the Gillibrand amendment or the McCaskill amendment on the floor because of procedural objections. I hope the Senate will be able to consider and vote on both of these important initiatives early next year. Again, relative to sexual assault, our bill does contain groundbreaking reforms that will provide much needed assistance to victims of sexual assault while also helping establish a climate in the military in which there is no tolerance for sexual assault or for retaliation against those who report it. With regard to Guantanamo, the bill we reported out of the Armed Services Committee included both language making it possible to bring detainees to the United States for trial and a provision making it easier to transfer detainees back to their home countries. The full Senate voted to retain these provisions by a 55-to-43 vote when the committee-reported bill was on the floor. The compromise we reached includes the House prohibition on bringing Gitmo detainees to the United States but follows the Senate language generally, which provides our military greater flexibility to transfer Gitmo detainees to third countries. As a result, our military will be able to make decisions about how long to keep detainees and under what circumstances to transfer them to third countries on the basis of a real-world evaluation of risks rather than the current law, which provides an arbitrary and extreme checklist of certification requirements. We recently received letters from our senior military leaders urging us to enact the Defense authorization bill before we leave this year. For example, GEN Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, wrote that the authorities included in this bill ``are critical to the Nation's defense and urgently needed to ensure we all keep faith with the men and women, military and civilian, selflessly serving in our Armed Forces.'' GEN Ray Odierno, the Army Chief of Staff, told us: From authorities that help us prevent and respond to sexual assault, restore readiness, allow for continuous work in our industrial base, and start important military construction projects, this NDAA is critical to your Soldiers, their Families, and the numerous local communities that support our installations. ADM Jonathan Greenert, Chief of Naval Operations, stated that pushing the bill into the next year ``would mean critical authorities expire, which would exacerbate my readiness challenge and jeopardize our commitment to our service men and women.'' Gen. James Amos, Commandant of the Marine Corps, wrote: Without an NDAA, landmark legislation transforming the Uniform Code of Military Justice and improving the support provided to victims of sexual assault will be lost. He continued: I am also concerned about the adverse impact on logistical support for Coalition forces in Afghanistan, our ability to retrograde military equipment along the Northern Distribution Network, and the impact on Coalition Support Funds that support ground transportation of supplies and retrograde of equipment through Pakistan. Gen. Mark Welsh, the Air Force Chief of Staff wrote: The FY 14 NDAA contains critical authorities that enable us to protect the American people while keeping our promise to our active duty, Guard, Reserve, and civilian airmen. If this important legislation is not enacted, I worry about significant impacts to Air Force operations that could jeopardize the missions we are tasked to perform. . . . Simply put, we cannot operate effectively without your help and without the direction that the NDAA provides. Gen. Frank Grass, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, told us: Failure to enact an NDAA would break faith with our Army and Air Guardsmen by not re-authorizing special pay and bonuses. Also, authorities contained in the NDAA are crucial to maintaining the training, equipment, and opportunities necessary for the National Guard to remain an operational force ready to respond to domestic and overseas contingencies. I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in full in the Record. .Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Washington, DC, December 9, 2013. Hon. Harry Reid, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Majority Leader: As we enter the final weeks of December, I write to urge you to complete the National Defense Authorization Act this year. The authorities contained therein are critical to the Nation's defense and urgently needed to ensure we all keep faith with the men and women, military and civilian, selflessly serving in our Armed Forces. Allowing the Bill to slip to January adds yet more uncertainty to the force and further complicates the duty of our commanders who face shifting global threats. I also fear that delay may put the entire Bill at risk, protracting this uncertainty and impacting our global influence. For your reference, enclosed is a list summarizing expiring authorities. I deeply appreciate congressional efforts to achieve a budget deal and subsequent appropriations. Your efforts to provide the Joint Chiefs the Time, Certainty, and Flexibility in both our budget and authorities will help ensure we keep our Nation safe from coercion. I appreciate your continued concern for and support of our men and women in uniform. Sincerely, Martin E. Dempsey, General, U.S. Army. Enclosure.

Mr. LEVIN. Finally, we have managed to pass a national defense authorization bill for 52 straight years, including a number of recent years when we were unable to pass a bill in the Senate, and therefore unable to go to a traditional conference. That is not best way to proceed. I think we all acknowledge that. Our troops, their families, and our Nation's security, deserve a defense bill, and what we are offering to the Senate is the only practical way to get a bill passed and enacted. Again, before I yield the floor, I wish to thank Senator Inhofe and his staff who have joined so closely with myself and all of the members of the Armed Services Committee and our staff to make it possible to get, as I said before, this close to the finish line. I am confident we are going to cross that finish line because of the hard work of our members. I want to especially point out our subcommittee chairs and the ranking members as well as all of the members of the Armed Services Committee, including Senator Blumenthal, who at this moment is presiding over the Senate and has personally played such an important role in getting us to where we are. With that, and again with my thanks to Senator Inhofe, I yield the floor.

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

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

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

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. The bill (H.R. 1402) was ordered to a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.

Mr. LEVIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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