i will highlight some of the oversight -- the f.y. 2014 ndaa includes. first, this bill fully funds the b-61 life extension program. the bipartisan and bicameral armed services committee agrees this program is vital to our national security, our strategic deterrent and the extended deterrence we provide to our allies in europe and asia. i'd also note the agreement makes clear that congress will not provide one penny to implement the new start treaty reductions unless the administration first comes up here and tells us what it plans to do and gives us a chance to state whether or not we agree. secondly, this bill provides $358 million for missile defense, including our cooperation with israel. this bill also includes an important national security space provision that ensures the u.s. will not -- is not relying on space capabilities of the people's republic of china and it promotes more cost-effective procurement and commercial satellite services. mr. speaker, we would not be here today without the leadership of chairman buck me keyon. i want to thank him

fanned we fail to pass the n -- and if we fail to pass the ndaa it would send a terrible signal to all of our troops over there. i've got a card here. some of these things that we would lose that i mentioned in that rather lengthy list may not happen until next year, may not happen until the first part of the year. some of them wou -- some of them would take place many february, some in march. but what would happen -- this question was asked by one of our fine senators, senator fischer from nebraska. she said, now, what would happen right now at the he happened of thiend of thisyear, december 31? what provisions would we lose if we don't pass this bill? and the answer is there are several of them but i'll just highlight a few of them here. one would be the session bonus for new officers in critical skills, the incentive bonus for conversion to military occupation specialty to ease personnel shortages. those of us who've been in the military, that's called the moss's. the incentive bonuses for transfer between armed forces, someone who's transferred from one area to the other has the --

and so we have always had -- in fact, for 51 consecutive years, we have passed an ndaa bill prior to january, and -- and it's always -- it's always been that way. this is a budget that must take place. now, this is very disturbing to me because we -- we were -- the house passed an ndaa bill some time ago. we in the senate, in the senate armed services committee way back -- was it may or june i guess? in june. in june, we passed the ndaa out of our committee, not unanimously but by almost unanimously and with bipartisan, 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 we're now at a position where we have to do it and have to have one coming up very -- it has to be this coming week. so anyway, we put together a bill. there is a thing a lot of people don't understand because it's 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 the

we're going to be taking up ndaa next. none of the amendments that i offered are in the ndaa. every one of them were structural to the pentagon to make it more responsible and accountable to its constitutional duty, which it has not performed, of giving an account to congress on how its spent its money. for example, the army commissioned a contract to have a warfare overseen blimp. they spent $297 million on that blimp. it flew for a short period of time in this country. we solve it back to the contractor for $300,000. i have two questions. one, whoever signed that contract and made that decision, did they get fired from the federal government? did they get demoted in rank? and, number two, was the contract actually executed to the requirements that the military set out for it? it's called accountability. the answer to both those is no. there is no accountability. and so we're going to have ndaa bill come through that requires them to meet an audit. they've been being required since 1992 to meet an audit. they've not done it. they won't do it in 2014. they won't do it in 1917

if we had known this was going to come up, we would have addressed it this in the ndaa. this is something that could have been addressed and offset. so i agree with everyone who has spoken on this. i think it is something that is just very difficult to understand how this could happen. and we do know this: that one of the differences between civilian employees and military employees, you can't recall civilian employees. we have a figure here -- are you aware, madam president, that we have actually since september 11 recalled 3,456 military retirees that have been recalled to duty? every one of them is going to be affected by this. and this is the travesty that we cannot allow it happen. i applaud my friend from alabama for bringing this up and hopefully we'll be able to correct it. we're going to have a vote right now, and i hope that this is a solution to it. then tomorrow we'll have a chance to get into the detail about the ndaa bill, which is a very, very significant bill that addresses things like this. with that, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the pr

the ndaa passed the armed services committee with a vote of 59-2. it passed the full house by a margin of 315-108. likewise, the senate voted its version of the bill out of committee by a vote of 23-3. this year we had unique challenges in bringing back a bipartisan, bicameral deal to the house for final consideration. yet, despite those obstacles we were able to negotiate a bipartisan bill with our senate colleagues. i'm especially grateful to ranking member adam smith, as well as chairman levin and ranking member inhofe of the senate armed services committee. they all rolled up their sleeves and we got the bill done in the allotted time. and believe me, that was no small hill to climb. on a related note, i'd be remiss to note that today we'll be voting on another hard-fought measure that's critical to defense. we have in sight a budget agreement for the next two years that provides a measure of predictability for our military. as we take the first steps to get this deal enacted, i wanted to ensure members that the ndaa's authorization levels remai

it would restore this bill, the ndaa, the one-year prohibition on transferring gitmo detainees. you might remember last year, we had that one-year prohibition. that expires. when that expires, anything can happen. of course, we -- we also had passed prohibitions on construction and modified facilities in the united states. all these things come to an end if we don't have this bill. now, we covered this, and i appreciate the fact, and i want to repeat what the chairman said, that we actually had and cleared, considered some 87 amendments, and we got in this bill 79 amendments, and that's democrat and republican amendments. so we have done this in the areas where we are supposed to be -- be accomplishing it. i looked at some of the things in military construction, that any major projects that are currently under construction would have to stop work. 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 off it air force base -- offett air force base in n

and we have coming over, i understand, ndaa bill that has typically been the vehicle that we all express ourselves on these kinds of issues. and it's my understanding that the majority leader has decided himself, i will say, much to the consternation to my friends on the other side of the aisle, but certainly to the consternation on my side of the aisle, that he's not going to allow any amendments, that he, himself, has decided what is best for this body. so after spending months and months and just coming from the region recently and working with the presiding officer and others on so many diplomatic and foreign policy issues together in a bipartisan way, i'm now serving in a body that has the vehicle that typically is used to express ourselves on foreign policy issues. i don't have the right to raise an amendment. the body, by the way, may decide they don't support it. that's what happens around here. you debate issues and you decide whether you want to support them. by the way, the amendment -- the amendment that i'm offering doesn't add sanctions. all it does is define when the end i

and the ndaa. so, these types of things have been in the works for a while.people ask about the combat excludes them -- the combat exclusion policy was repealed this year. doesn't that just mean more women are going to get raped? no, it does not. diversity and the military is a good thing. women are just as capable of doing the things men do, and the standards need to be set. i honestly believe the leadership you have is where the line is going to be drawn. good leadership, this kind of stuff doesn't happen. bad leadership, anything goes. and you have to hold people accountable for their choices. that includes leadership that chooses to sweep this under the ride and pretend it doesn't happen. but again, my perspectives are, i still have very strong feelings about the military. i believe it was a good thing for me. there is a lot of cognitive dissonance there. i still cannot do the veterans day parade. i cannot do it. there is an overwhelming sense and emotion, but this. and i cannot reconcile that. may be i will get over that one day. i still feel very strong

that's funded but the funding expire on december 31 untiles we pass an ndaa. similarly, any military member engaged in hostile fire is entitled to hazard use pay under the current appropriations bill. that north expires on december 31 if we don't pass it. it can affect us as well. these are important issues in the frc status but another item on the table now in the senate that has a significant bearing stability going forward. it's my hope they will act with that as well. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. let me ask you two final questions. which i think is important everyone i speak to tells me that security is major concern of a highest concern reference to the elections. what can be done to address the issue of polling stations and secure areas? what about security for women's polling station which hinder the ability of afghan women to vote. could insufficient security and polarization impact the legitimacy of the election for the afghan people? >> i had a briefen on election preparations from i safe when i was there last thursday. and they were pre

there's possibility we could see for the first time in 51 years that the congress doesn't pass and ndaa. that further complicates what we're trying to do here. for our planning. >> general dempsey, -- [inaudible] are abducted, what are the implications for modernization programs and for the asia-pacific benefit? will those both be cut back severely both modernization and defense? >> no, not initially because what we said, tony, we're going to make sure our forces are ready to deploy and to maintain our forward presence in our deterrence. that will remain true. it's what sits beneath it though behind it that's beginning to rebuild. the way i look at -- beginning to erode. i've said this, for about three or four years it creates a huge readiness problem, because you can't shed force structure, close infrastructure, you know, reduce weapons systems early in that period. so the only place you can go to get the money is in readiness, training. and amendments. and then at the backend of it because of the debt, depth of it that we begin to lose that. he is a basketball analogy if i may, we sti

minority might actually win the argument and carry the day and that's exactly what we're seeing with the ndaa. now, the majority leader won't allow a low bust amendment process because he can't stomach a vote on iran sanctions. he knows the administration would lose that vote decisively and he knows that many members of his own caucus would vote alongside republicans to strengthen those sanctions. so rather than allow a democratic vote that might embarrass the administration, the majority leader simply won't permit that vote to happen. here's another consequence by denying the senate the ability to legislate and amend the national defense authorization act, the defense appropriations act and additional iran sanctions and by refusing the senate the ability to vote on the authorization of force against syria, the majority leader has abdicated this chamber's constitutional role in overseeing national security policy. without considering these matters, the senate has been unable to address the programs, policies and d and weapons systems necessary to make the president's strategic pivot to the as

while i appreciate some of the things included in the ndaa and in the past i've helped work on bipartisan agreements, bicameral with the senate and the house, worked on an effort to rein in the president's authority to just indefinitely detain american citizens, and i think we had a great solution that we had worked together to get inserted, so i don't believe that the president can do that any longer with the language now eing used, i still can't continue to support what we're doing and i hope that we will have a bipartisan effort in the w year to actually end the authorization for use of military force against september 11 terrorist. now that we seem to be helping those associated with the radical islamic terrorists instofede being at war with them. mr. speaker, it is an honor to stand here and congratulate the national industries for the blind, that's the n.i.b., on their 75th anniversary and the great work they do for texas' first congressional district. n.i.b.'s mission is to, quote, enhance opportunities for economic and personal independence of persons who are ind, primarily throug

done, and the only way you can change the military is literally through an act of congress and the ndaa so these types of things have been this the works for a while, and people ask, too, like the whole combat exclusion policy was repealed this year. they're like, well, doesn't that just mean more women are going to get raped? i'm like, no, it does not. and diversity in the military is a good thing, and women are just as capable of doing the things that men do, and it's all about, you know, the standards you set. and i honestly believe that the leadership that you have is going to be where that line is drawn. good leadership, this stuff doesn't happen. bad leadership, anything goes. and that's kind of, you know, you have to hold people accountable for their, for their choices. and that includes leadership that chooses to sweep this stuff under the rug and pretend like it doesn't happen. but, you know, again, my perspectives are i still have very strong feelings about the military, and i believe that it was a good thing for me. there's a lot of cognitive dissonance there. like i said, i

i believe in 2008 under the ndaa, congress created 25,000 visas for iraqis who worked for the government at least for a year. another i think 8,750 were created under the afghan allies protection act of 2009. again, for our afghan allies that worked for the united states in some capacity. can you give me an outline, sir, best that you can, one of, how many afghans are eligible for that program? how many have been processed to date? what that timeline is and what that backlog might be -- the causes to that backlog and what we might do to try to help. >> thank you. i believe that we were slow in getting this process into gear. and for the first several years, the number of applicants who successfully completed the process was fairly low. over the last year, however, it was significantly accelerated. last year we had 10 times more successful completions than in the previous year. in fact, we are now approaching the legislative limit and the numbers available, and we are looking forward to work with congress to extend our authority to bring in additional people. >> how many more? >> i think

my colleagues and i have filed over 500 amendments to this year's ndaa. through hard work, bipartisan support, the two armed services committee staffs have strived to accommodate the concerns of the senate. but even so, there are pressing issues that require full and deliberative debate in the senate. these include military sexual assault, counterterrorism and detention policy, and sanctions against those regimes that would do america harm, including iran. by "faster," i mean the bill spends less time on the senate floor. the 20-year average is over nine days, with a maximum of 19 days for the fiscal year 2008 bill. the one day we spent on this bill in november is insufficient time to debate the critical security issues confronting our nation. the senate majority has gone to great lengths to keep the bill off the floor. when they could no longer avoid it, they have compressed the time line for consideration or recommitted it to the armed services committee. this is unprecedented and it is totally unacceptable. by "later," i mean a lack of urgency to take