vote:

the presiding officer: any senators wishing to vote? the ayes are 95, the nay is one, the nomination is confirmed. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: we have a couple more votes. the presiding officer: come to order. listen to the majority leader. mr. reid: we have a couple more votes scheduled, they're going by voice, i'm told but we're going to have a cloture vote an hour after we come in tomorrow morning. there is no reason we can't be finished tomorrow but that doesn't mean we will be finished tomorrow. we'll have to work out the time problems we have with the matters that will be pending after we complete the votes on these two things now. so we could finish tomorrow. it's just up to us. otherwise we may have to spill over a little into late on

friday. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will proceed to the consideration of the following nominations which the clerk will report. the clerk: department of transportation, debra l. miller of kansas to be a member of the surface transportation board. railroad retirement board, steven joel anthony of virginia, to be a member. department of state, daniel w.johannes of colorado to be a member of the united states of america of the economic corporation and development. the presiding officer: under the previous order, two minutes will be equally divided on the miller nomination. who yields time?

without objection, all time is yielded back. the question is on the miller nomination. all those in favor signify by saying aye. all those opposed, nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes have it. the miller nomination is confirmed. the question is on the anthony nomination. who yields time? without objection, the time is yielded back. the question is on the anthony nomination, all in favor say aye. all opposed nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes have it. the anthony nomination is confirmed. the question is on the yohannes nomination. who yields time? without objection, all time is yielded back. the question is on the yohannes

nomination. all those in favor say aye. opposed nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes have it. the yohannes nomination is confirmed. the senate will be in order. under the previous order, the motions to reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table. the president is immediately notified of the senate action. the senate will resume legislative business.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. reed: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senior senator from rhode island is recognized. the senate will be in order. mr. reed: mr. president, i would ask to dispense of the calling of the roll. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reed: mr. president, i would like to rise to speak in support of of the minimum wage fairness act. mr. president, i am strongly in

support of the minimum wage fairness act. the minimum wage first instituted in 1938 has served as a key way to protect workers in our economy, ensuring that they're able to earn enough money to provide the basic living necessities. however, the current federal minimum wage set at $7.25 an hour fails to do that. the federal minimum wage has not been increased since 2009. today an individual who works 40 hours per week, 52 weeks per year at the federal minimum wage earns $15,080 per year, and this is nearly $5,000 below the federal poverty level for a family of three. and almost $9,000 below the poverty level for a family of four. this means that we have hardworking americans who put in full-time work every week for the entire year, yet still live in poverty. and this is unacceptable. if we fail to act, the federal poverty level will rise with

inflation while the minimum wage will not. as a result, families earning $7.25 per hour will continue to fall further and further below the poverty line. the value of the minimum wage peaked in 1968 and is now much lower due to inflation. if the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation, it would currently pay $10.74 per hour. while the value of the minimum wage has been on the decline, worker productivity has been on the rise, and that is a disconnect. increased productivity usually means that there is increased wages reflected in that productivity. that is not the case with the minimum wage. if the minimum wage had increased with rising productivity, it would be worth over $21 per hour today. yet the minimum wage still stays stuck at $7.25. if we were paying workers based on the 1968 level, it would be

much higher. if we were paying wages based on the productivity, their ability to do the job, it would be exceptionally higher. this bill, the bill before us, or will come shortly before us, will increase the minimum wage in three installments until it reaches $10.10 per hour and then tie the federal minimum wage to inflation. this would ensure that the value of minimum wage will not be eroded over time as it has been. the bill will also increase the minimum wage for tip workers whose minimum wage is fixed at $2.13 for over he two decades. i must salute the presiding officer, the president pro tempore, for his insistence that this provision be included within the minimum wage bill. over 3.5 million americans currently work at or below the current minimum wage, and there are millions more who work just above it. raising the minimum wage would,

therefore, increase the wages of everyone making the current minimum wage up until the $10.10 mark. the congressional budget office estimates that 16.5 million americans would see their wages increase by this legislation. and the council of economic advisors estimates that 28 million people would benefit from the wage increase. according to researchers at m.i.t., a rhode island worker supporting a family of four would need to earn $19.17 per hour to have a living wage, a wage in which he can adequately, or she can adequately support their family. yet, the current minimum wage lags woefully behind, putting many working families in dire financial straits. the economic policy institute estimates that raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour -- i would point out that our minimum wage an hour is $8.80, higher than the minimum wage. but if we raised it to this

proposed federal level of $10.10, we would give over 90,000 rhode islanders a raise and it would immediately translate into economic activity in rhode island and it would immediately translate into growth in rhode island. that raise would be affecting almost 20% of our workforce. this is a critical way in order to give families the ability to support themselves, increase economic growth, and also significantly begin to bring together workers at every level. we've seen extraordinary gains at the top level. we've seen stagnation at the midlevel and the low level. we've got to start bringing ourselves together rather than pulling ourselves apart. providing a raise to these workers would estimate approximately 40,000 children in these families.

over three years the economic policy institute estimates that this will cost our economy to grow by $77 million and support 300 additional jobs. we're talking about economic growth as well as fairness to working americans. so the benefits of raising the minimum wage are vast both in my state and across this country. according to c.b.o., this legislation would lift an estimated 900,000 people out of poverty. it would also help lower middle-income families who have been struggling in this economy. this would have a huge impact and a positive impact across the country. increasing the minimum wage is especially important to women who disproportionately work minimum-wage jobs. 5% of all minimum-wage workers are women, including over 70% of the tip workers. again, thanks to the efforts of the presiding officer, we're focusing on this issue of the tipped worker and their minimum wage. while some have suggested otherwise, this legislation is also good for business.

studies show that high wages allow businesses to save money because they have less turnover and lower training costs which lead to increases in worker productivity that helps business succeeds. an increase in minimum wage can help our nation's small businesses compete. it forces the big-box stores to pay wages that are comparable to those paid by many small businesses which levels the playing field in the marketplace. finally, this bill will save billions of dollars in the federal budget. by raising the minimum wage to $10.10 federal need-based programs would have fewer enrollees and the cost of these programs will drop significantly. researchers at the brookings institution estimate that increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 will save at least $11 billion annually in the federal budget. and these savings come both from the lower cost of federal programs and increased revenues from taxing a higher base salary.

now, some critics suggest that increasing the minimum wage only helps teenagers, but in fact the average age of individuals who would benefit from this legislation is 35 years old. nationally, over 84% of those directly affected by this legislation are at least 20 years old, and nearly half are at least 30. and in my state, according to the estimates by the economic policy institute, 77% of workers that would see a raise under this bill are at least 20 years old. so this is not the high school student, part-time, a few hours a week getting the minimum wage. these are people who are on average 30 years or more who are working and struggling not only for themselves but in many cases for their families. so this bill is something that's beneficial to workers throughout this country. opponents of the minimum wage have also argued that increasing minimum wage will decrease jobs, citing a recent c.b.o. report. however, the c.b.o. report was

generated without any new analysis on the part of the c.b.o., and their estimates are stated with a great deal of uncertainty. in fact, the c.b.o.'s own numbers suggest there is a 16% chance that increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 would actually increase employment. economists at goldman sachs and at the brookings institution say that the c.b.o. report overstates the likely negative impact on jobs. further, over 600 economists, including seven nobel prize winners, sent a letter to president obama and congressional leaders urging them to support this bill saying that -- quote -- "the weight of evidence now shows that increases to the minimum wage have had little to no negative effect on employers and minimum-wage workers even during times of weakness in the labor market." they go on to add that it could help stimulate the economy as higher wages could lead to increased consumer demand and spending. the most recent research

suggests rather than having job losses, this will contribute to a growing economy. mr. mr. president, the benefits of raising the minimum wage is to the economy as a whole. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation to help restore the minimum wage as a safeguard to men and women and their families. could i ask unanimous consent that my following remarks be separated as i address a -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. i rise to speak about another important matter and ask unanimous consent that my statement appear separately in the record, as i have just requested. this month we solidly recognized the 99th anniversary of the armenia genocide. 99 years ago the young turk leaders of the ot ottoman entir.

by 1923 nearly 1.5 million armenians were killed and nearly a million survivors were exiled. these atrocities affected the lives of every armenian living in asia minor and indeed throughout world. henry morgan that will senior, the u.s. ambassador during president wilson's administration and who had urged intervention, later remembered the events of the genocide saying, in his wor words, "i am confident that the whole history of the united states contains into horrible incidence as this. the great per ciewtionz of the past seem almost insignificant when compared to the suffering of the armenian race in 1915." the survivors of the armenian genocide, however, persevered due to their unbreakable spirit and steadfast resolve. they went on to enrich their

country's with immigration. that is why today we not only commemorate this grave tragedy but we celebrate the traditions, the contributions, and the bright future of armenia. in particular, i want to note the incredibly strong armenian-american community in my home state of rhode island. the armenian community holds events in commemoration of this grave tragedy. one will take place this year at the modest among iewment at the this monument was built 38 years ago in memory to those lost in the genocide. i once again join my senate colleagues this year on a resolution that encourages the u.s. to officially recognize the armenian genocide. denial of this history is not consistent with our country's sensitivity to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. we must continue to educate our young people against this type of hatred and oppression so that

we can seek to prevent such crimes against humanity in the future. i also remain committed to supporting efforts as a member of the senate appropriations committee to provide foreign assistance to armenia, to promote economic growth and business competitiveness, strengthen military security assistance and support democratic reforms and sustainable development. i also want to express my concern regarding the recent fighting and violence that is endangering the armenian community in kasab, syria and has forced many to flee. this community and so many others continues to struggle in the midst of this conflict. we must find a way to recognize what happened 99 years ago and show our support to those who are currently being impacted by persecution. i hope we can come together and do that. with that, i yield the floor. i would also note, mr. president, the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that micah murphy, a navy fellow, asigned to the -- assigned to the office of senator mccain, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 113th congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i rise today on the issue of pay equity. frankly, we shouldn't be talking about this in 2014, the fact that women still too often don't get equal pay for equal work. as senate republicans showed this morning, it's disappointing that too many in this chamber simply don't think closing the wage gap between men and women, closing the wage gap by which working women are victimized is that important. think back, 1963, the beginning not of the civil rights movement but the beginning, of course, the beginning of congressional action in 1963 and 1964 and 1965 when voting rights and civil rights. 1965, the equal pay act came up

first. president kennedy signed it. women were earning 60 cents for every dollar men earned. 50 years later, that figure has increased only 17 cents. how many more years should people in this country wait? 2012, median earnings for men working full time in ohio were $46,700. women, $35,000, $35,900, an earnings ratio of 77%. paycheck fairness act would shore up the equal pay act, create stronger incentives for employers to follow the law, while helping women fight pay discrimination. the pay gap persists across all occupations and educational levels. from the outset, women are paid less than men just one year after college in nearly every occupation, the gap grows from there. as pay, the gap grows in pay, the gap grows in pensions. lilly ledbetter taught us that,

that her -- her decidedly lower pay that she -- that she received working at goodyear showed up in a significantly lower pension when she retires. over the course of a 35-year career, a woman with a college degree will make about $1.2 million less than a man with the same level of education. and as i said, when women make less, their families have less, their retirement income and savings are smaller. women 65 and older, their annual median income from all retirement sources, social security, pensions, private savings, her annual median income is about $11,000 less than men in the same age group. it's even more discouraging for african-american women who make 64% less and hispanic women who earn 53% less. that's so, so, so unacceptable. as a father of daughters, as a husband, as a grandfather of

2-week-old jacqueline sally, and as america i know this pay gap devalues women's work. it discourages economic growth because women take up nearly half of today's work force. at a time when families are struggling to make ends meet, equal pay for equal work isn't just a gender issue, it's a family issue. more than one-third of the family's women are the primary wage earner. women are asked to carry a greater economic load while making less than they deserve and frankly less than they have actually earned. many of these women get up early, they take the bus to work, they stand on their feet all day, they come home, take care of their children, they don't ask for a handout but they are asking for equal pay. if the wage gap were eliminated, ohio women working full time would have enough money for 88 more weeks of food for her family, nine more months of mortgage and utility payments, 15 months of rent, 3,000 additional gallons of gas. our economy would grow, boosting

g.d.p. by 2.9% of $450 billion. senator jack reed was in this -- in the chamber just 45 minutes or so ago. i was in the presiding officer's chair then. senator reed talked about rhode island and the minimum wage and how the impact of a lower minimum wage than it should be. they have a bit higher in rhode island than some states. we have a bit higher in ohio than some states, but raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour nationally would mean -- he said 90,000 people in rhode island. it would be way more, hundreds of thousands in ohio would get an increase in the minimum wage, will get a pay raise if this body did what it should, which we're going to try to do in the next three or four weeks, and that is raise the minimum wage. mr. president, the minimum wage is -- the impact of the minimum wage is especially important for women, and what's especially important for women, mr. president, is the so-called

tipped wage. the tipped wage for people that work in jobs where there are tips could be a valet, it could be a waitress, a server, it could be somebody pushing the wheelchair, a wheelchair at an airport. their minimum wage is only $2.13 an hour, plus tips, if people know to tip the man or woman who is pushing the wheelchair in the airport. and i watch pretty closely. i spend a lot of time flying between cleveland and washington or columbus and washington, and i notice that more often than not people that ride in the carts or are sitting in a wheelchair don't tip the worker whose minimum wage again is is $2.13 an hour, don't tip the worker because i don't think they know to tip the worker. i don't think they are cheap. i don't think they know that worker marry making only $2 up to $5 an hour. but the minimum wage for that tipped worker is $2.13 an hour,

whether you are working in a diner in chillicothe ee, whether you are working at the toledo or cleveland airport, driving a part, push -- a cart, pushing a wheelchair, whether you are working as a valet in cincinnati or dayton. your tipped wage is stuck at at $2.13, $2.13 since 1991. the state of maryland recently raised their minimum wage. they didn't raise the tipped wage which is stuck where it has been for a number of years. americans don't know this typically that there is a sub minimum wage that's a lot less. most of the workers, an overwhelming majority of workers that get that tipped wage are women, and we know that in -- in restaurants, the sexual harassment rate of -- of workers in restaurants are some of the highest in the country because they depend on customers for their tips, they depend on their

boss for the distribution of the tips to get their minimum wage, wage, $2.13 an hour. some restaurants pay $2 or $3 or or $4, or $5. but to get their tipped wage up to the minimum wage. surely as some will say, in some restaurants, the workers make way, way, way more than the minimum wage. those are more likely than not male workers who work in the highest end restaurants. women workers are more likely, more likely you are going to see women in the diners and the lower paid service jobs in restaurants. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to have the following insert norwood a different portion of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: april 18 will mark the 72nd anniversary of the 1942 doolittle raid, the first offensive action by the u.s. military following pearl harbor.

80 men known today as the doolittle tokyo raiders volunteered for an extremely hazardous mission without knowing the target or location or assignment. the raiders led by james doolittle launched their missile bombers 650 miles from their target. after hitting their military and industrial targets in tokyo and five other cities, they were low on fuel, the weather was deteriorating. all 16 planes were forced to crash land in china or russia. of the 80 men on the mission, eight raiders were captured. of these eight, three were executed, one died of disease, four returned home. their mission traveled an average distance of 2,200 miles over 13 hours, making it the longest combat mission ever flown in a b-25 bomber. i would add, mr. president, that another aviation hero in vietnam just walked into the chamber, senator mccain, right at the time i was talking about the doolittle raiders, and he has signed our resolution in

commendation for a medal of honor for them, and i thank senator mccain, both for his her owism especially and for -- heroism especially and for joining us in this effort. in 2002, i led a resolution to recognize the 70th anniversary, passed the senate unanimously. early last year, i renewed my efforts to award the congressional gold medal to the doolittle tokyo raiders. we have got 78 cosponsors, nine more than the 67 necessary. this bill passed the senate in november by unanimous consent. on november 9 of 2013, the raiders celebrated their final reunion. they have met every year since the end of -- i believe since the end of world war ii. they met at the national museum of the u.s. air force in dayton. the meeting marked the last planned gathering of the living raiders. it was celebrated by the opening of an 1896 bottle of hennessey hennesseycognac originally given

by their commander on the 60th birthday. only four remain alive today. only three were able to get to the union. time is running out. i appreciate the efforts of congressman pete olson from texas who is leading the effort in the house. i hope the speaker, the leadership in both parties will take the final action needed to pass the legislation honoring these heroes. one more point, mr. president, if i can ask unanimous consent to place one more additional item in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: it's appropriate senator mccain is in the chamber for this, too. in 2008 senator mccain who had served as a member of the senate snee on the -- designee on the gallaudet board of trustees left that during his president yalg run. senator harkin and senator mccain apparently had recommended that i be the senate designee on the board at gallaudet university. gallaudet celebrated this week its 150th anniversary, it's

an incredible place as senator mccain knows, the only one of its kind in the world. a school for the deaf created during the administration of president lincoln 150 years ago in 1864. one of the -- senator mccain, i know he's here on the floor for another reason but certainly will have reminiscenses and stories about serving on this board but my first dinner my first night at the university at the gallon death university -- gallaudet university, the students, all deaf came out and performed a dance for us. a number of people on the board here, and sign everything, and the students that were dancing to the music were able to dance because of the vibration withs they felt on the floor. you could see this drans troupe and -- dance troupe and you wouldn't have known they were better because they were dancing in exact rhythm with the

vibrations on the floor in the ballroom where the dinner was for the gallaudet, gallaudet board. it's an incredible institution that serves this country so well, partially congressionally funded. senator mccain and senator harkin and now senator moran from kansas are particularly interested in it and it's an honor to be a part of it and i wish gallaudet a happy 150th birthday. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i want to thank the senator from ohio for his service on really one of the really remarkable experiences one could have at gallaudet university. wonderful loving, caring people who make us all proud of their success, and i thank him for his involvement. i also thank him for honoring our heroes today of long ago and far away when the united states

was in great jeopardy. mr. president, i rise today to bring attention to the navy's littoral expwat combat ship. it's a troubled major defense acquisition program if not properly addressed will join a list of failed procurements at the department of defense. from the 13 arduous years that l.c.s. has been in development we've learned yet again an important costly, basic lesson. if we don't know what we really want when we procure a weapons system, we're likely not to get -- not to like what we get. if we get anything. in this case the navy's poor planning continues to frustrate a, the litterral combat ship and led to years of wasted effort and a ship that the u.s.

pacific commander, admiral samuel lockhere conceded only partially meets his operational requirements. the list of how the program has failed is ironic and given the amount of taxpayers' investment to date, shameful. in l.c.s. when we have a supposed warship that apparently can't survive a hostile environment, two, a program chosen for affordability that doubled in cost since inception and subject to further cost growth as testing continues. three, a -- quote -- "revolutionary design" that somehow has managed to be inferior to what came before it on important performance measures. and four, a system designed for flexibility that cannot successfully demonstrate its most important war fighting functions. like so many major programs that proceeded it, l.c.s.'s failure

followed predict apply bli from a chronic lack of careful planning from its outset in three areas. undefined requirements, unrealistic initial cost estimates, and unreliable assessments of technological and integration risk. in 2002, the navy submitted its first request to congress to authorize funding for the l.c.s. program. yet even then the program's lack of defined requirements drew criticism from the armed services committee conferees. the conferees noted that -- quote -- "l.c.s. has not been vetted through the pentagon's top requirement setting body called the joint requirements oversight council, and the, quote, the navy strategy for the l.c.s. does not clearly identify the plan and funding for development and evaluation of the mission packages upon which the operational capabilities of l.c.s. will

depend. despite the conferees' concerns, congress approved funding for the l.c.s. program and authorized hundreds of millions of dollars for a program without well-defined frozen requirements. the navy therefore charges ahead with production without a stable design or realistic cost estimates. that resulted in frequent costly changes to the ships even as they were being built. originally, the navy wanted a small, fast, affordable ship to augment larger ships in the fleet. with several interchangeable plug and play module -- mission modules that would be used with aluminum and separately steel hull sea frames. l.c.s. was to serve multiple roles, operating in coastal or open waters as part of a larger battle force. the navy could have easily

procured a small war ship similar to those already serving in naval fleets around the world. the capabilities of such ships were well known at the time and would require much less development. the navy could also have upgraded older ships with a proven track record. without any formal analysis of those reasonable alternatives, the navy opted instead to develop a high-risk revolutionary ship that bore little resemblance to anything else in the fleet. despite the foreseeable costs of building l.c.s. sea frames while development was still ongoing, l.c.s.'s original cost estimates were overly optimistic. navy officials have since characterized those estimates as -- quote -- "more of a hopeful forcing function than a realistic appraisal of likely costs." now, i can assure my colleagues if we had known that was the

navy's cost estimates at the time, hopeful forcing function, more than a realistic appraisal of likely costs, i can assure my colleagues we would never have approved it. well, hope for low cost may spring eternal, reality is a far more helpful basis for generating cost estimates. in this case a realistic estimate would have allowed legislators and top defense acquisition managers alike to make much more informed decisions on procuring the l.c.s. but because of poor planning early in the program, l.c.s. suffered through years of waste while demonstrating little in the way of desired combat capability. hundreds of millions of dollars continued to pour into l.c.s. each year even though the program continually failed to deliver useful capability or conclusively flesh out the

ship's unstable design. finally, in 2007 --, remember, five years later -- secretary of the navy donald winter identified the need to slow down production so that a clear l.c.s. design could be established and fixed price agreements could be pursued before more taxpayer dollars were wasted. i strongly supported secretary winter's actions and i still believe he effectively highlighted the extent to which l.c.s. was slipping out of control. it was not until between, however, -- between, however, that the navy began to implement guidelines to bring skyrocketing l.c.s. costs under control. two with congressional approval, the navy overhauled and restructured the l.c.s. program and since then the cost of building l.c.s.'s sea frames has finally stabilize. but even though the navy has

stabilize these costs, the large investment sunk into the program to date have still not yielded commensurate combat cape bill. since the early stages of l.c.s. procurement i have attempted to shine a light on the lack of planning that has plagued the program. last year i authorized -- authored legislation to reduce l.c.s. production and require validation by the department of defense and the navy that the program sea frame and mission packages were on schedule and would meet the requirements of combatant commanders riert additional funding. congress spoke resolutely on the issue, approving that legislation and sending a clear message the l.c.s. would need to justify its existence with meaningful progress toward becoming operational. despite the cost to complete the reduction of the sea frames has stabilize over the past few

years, l.c.s. continues to face another potentially crippling consequence of poor planning and that is a serious lack in capability. just last month, secretary of defense chuck hagel identified this problem while announcing that the president's budget request for fiscal year 2015 would reduce l.c.s. program -- production, reduce l.c.s. production by 40%, from 52 ships to 32 ships. secretary hagel said -- quote -- "the l.c.s. was designed to perform certain missions such as mine sweeping and anti-submarine warfare in a relatively permissive environment but we need to closely examine whether the l.c.s. has the independent production and firepower to operate and survive against a more advanced military adversary and emerging new technologies

especially in the asia pacific. other department of defense leaders have expressed similar doubts about l.c.s.'s ability to survive qat combat situations. acting secretary of defense christine fox said in a speech on february 11, 2014, -- quote -- "niche platforms that conduct a certain mission in permissive environment have a valuable place in the navy's inventory yet we need more ships with the protection and firepower to survive against a more advanced military adversary." the prospect of sending l.c.s. into combat with the lives of american sailors at risk is even more chilling in aftermath of the government accountability office's july, 2013 report on l.c.s. early in l.c.s.'s development, the navy intended for the ship to be a self-sufficient

combatant that could engage in major combat operations and survive in a battle space actively contested by enemy forces. according to the government accountability office, however, more recent navy assessments suggest that l.c.s. has little chance of survival in a combat scenario. instead, l.c.s. can only be safely employed in a relatively benign low-threat environment. g.a.o. also found deficiencies in the ability of l.c.s. to operate independently in combat, turning a supposedly capable war ship into a vessel requiring significant support from larger ships of the fleet. such fundamental uncertainty about l.c.s.'s capacity to function as a warship in a combat environment demonstrates the a lack of clarity regarding l.c.s.'s actual capabilities. recent g.a.o. assessments

continue to highlight major problems regarding the l.c.s. problems. according to an article last friday, a soon-to-be released g.a.o. report will validate the need for l.c.s. could be subject to rigorous testing and evaluation, not just anecdotal lessons learned from a single overseas deployment. and there is talk of another impending g.a.o. report critical of l.s.c. that will also likely echo the issues i have long cited that continue to plague this program. g.a.o. is not alone in expressing concern about l.c.s.'s capability. in january, 2014, the department of defense director of operational test and evaluation published his annual report. and noted that weapons systems aboard each of the two l.c.s. variants are struggling to demonstrate required capabilities. the report noted -- and i quote

-- "the navy has not yet conducted comprehensive operational testing of the l.c.s. and is still developing the concept of employment for these ships in each of the mission areas." it's worth taking a moment to sp back and consider the absurdity of this situation. planning and development of l.c.s. has been going on for 12 years, roughly triple the time it took to fight and win the second world war. in that time the navy has spent billions of dollars and failed to even figure out how to use the ships it is procuring once those ships demonstrate some semblance of capability. and lest we forget whether l.c.s. will ultimately be operationally effective, suitable and survivable remains at best unclear. failure of this comprehensive is incredible, even for our broken

defense procurement system. the individual mission packages that were supposed to give l.c.s. its real functionality in the fleet present another area of major concern. the l.c.s.'s are meant to be outfitted with one of three interchangeable mission packages tailored for particular roles in the fleet. antisubmarine warfare, surface warfare, and mine countermeasures. so far the mission packages have experienced significant performance issues. the antisubmarine warfare mission package has suffered particularly severe setbacks in recent years. when the antisubmarine package was tested by the navy, it actually demonstrated less capability than predecessor systems. the navy subsequently canceled the package and reportedly revised its entire strategy for

procuring that aspect of l.c.s. the navy has now stated a goal of fielding the antisubmarine mission package by 2018, but no independent assessment has been performed to evaluate the likelihood that the navy will meet that 2018 goal. and the program's performance to date, of course, does thought fill me with confidence that the goal will be reached on schedule. the other mission packages have also experienced major problems. the navy has taken delivery of early versions of the surface warfare and mine warfare mission packages. but according to g.a.o., both packages have experienced significant performance issues. and neither has yet been fully integrated into the l.c.s. sea frames. the mine countermeasures mission package considered by many

experts to be the most important is more than four years behind schedule. according to the d.o.d.'s director of operational test and evaluation, the mine countermeasures mission package has yet to demonstrate any of its required capabilities. given the utter failure of the mine countermeasures missions package to date, the navy has altered its plan for acquiring this package. the full package will be delivered over a series of four increments, and if everything goes according to plan, the navy will successfully demonstrate the capability of the fourth and final increment in 2019, 18 years -- 18 years -- after planning for the l.c.s. program commenced. until then, the navy will be forced to retain the current generation of mine sweeping ships. today the navy plans to purchase

its final l.c.s. sea frame in 2019, the same year when the mine countermeasures package is supposed to be ready. if the mine countermeasures package has suffered a delay by that point, and with the history of this program to date, a mere one-year delay would qualify as an improvement; the navy will have an entire fleet of l.c.s.'s with only two-thirds of their planned capability, even if all of the other problems with the ships are fixed. all of the mission packages need significant further testing and have to overcome major integration challenges. that work is likely to drive up program costs and leave combatant commanders without the tools or capabilities they need for years to come. the l.c.s. program faces a daunting combination of capability failures and strategic confusion. the navy does not know what the

l.c.s. sea frames will be capable of doing once all of them are purchased in 2019, and it does not know what role they will play even if development miraculously goes according to plan. against that backdrop, the need to slow this procurement is clear. recently we learned recently that at secretary hagel's direction, the navy has established a task force to determine how l.c.s. can best serve the fleet going forward. the navy should, above all else, not repeat the mistakes of the past. congress must hold the navy to account at each step in the process. this means establishing requirements and sticking to them, setting a stable design and holding to it and zealously guarding against further cost

growth. i support secretary hagel's decision to limit l.c.s. procurement to 32 ships. i have recommended further reducing the l.c.s. procurement to 24 ships. more important than the raw number of ships, however, is the manner in which the procurement goes forward. as congress considers the president's 2015 budget request and continues to conduct oversight of l.c.s. and every major defense acquisition program, we would be wise to understand this particular program's failings, or risk repeating them. the program is still clearly riddled with uncertainty about what the ships will be used for and what they will be capable of. production should not go forward until the navy and d.o.d. confirm that l.c.s. provides greater capabilities than the legacy ships it is intended to replace and that the mission packages plus the sea frames

have demonstrated the combined combat capability that our combatant commanders need. i understand that in connection with secretary hagel tofs direction to limit l.c.s.'s procurement and develop a more capable follow-on ship, the navy is underway barn storming on possible alternatives to l.c.s. that may provide it reliably with the capabilities it needs at a comparable cost. before making final decisions on any procurement, however, the navy must first determine what problem it is trying to solve, exactly what operational requirements the combatant pharpbdz -- commanders have. this is the step the l.c.s. program originally skipped. only after that basic question is answered definitively should the navy start considering what

materiel solution could be brought to bear on that capability gap. a major defense acquisition programs, and that should be always, be our approach, l.c.s. or no l.c.s. while a history of the l.c.s. procurement supports my recommendation that we should not procure ships until we know what we want them to do, the outcome is also dictated by plain common sense, we live in an age of great fiscal uncertainty through the sequestration and other defense budget cuts. with that fiscal pressure, there is a much smaller margin for error in the procurement world. every dollar wasted buying ships with unclear capabilities or unspecified missions is a dollar that could have supported a vital defense activity. the wastefulness of excessive concurrency of buying a system that has not been tested and

figuring out requirements and fixes on the fly is more unacceptable than ever when so many good programs have to make do with sharply reduced funding. i will continue speaking out against wasteful concurrency that is acquisition malpractice as i have done for years. in today's fiscal world, spending money as we've done in l.c.s. is not just reckless, not just wasteful; it's dangerous. it actually weakens our national defense. it's my sincere hope and confirm conviction that in the future we can prove ourselves better stewards of taxpayers' money than we have in the past. and finally, getting l.c.s. right would be a big, long overdue step in that direction. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to a period of morning business, senators athrowed speak up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar numbers 745, 7456, 747, 748, 4749, 750 750, 751. all nominations placed on the secretary's desk. the nominations be confirmed enblork the motions to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate, no further motions be in order to any of the nominations, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate resume legislative session. officer without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the agriculture committee be discharged from further consideration of s. con.

res. 33. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. con. res. 33, concurrent resolution celebrating the 100th anniversary of the enactment of the smith-lever act which established the nationwide cooperative extension system. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the measure is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that we now proceed to s. con. res. 356789. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. con. res. 35, concurrent resolution providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the senate and an adjournment of the house of representatives. the presiding officer: is there objection to with the measure? without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the concurrent

resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the appointment at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business tatted, it adjourn until 9:30 tomorrow morning. following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. following leader remarks, the time until 10:30 be equally divide and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. at 10:30, the senate proceed to vote on executive calendar number 574. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: at 10:30, there will be a roll call vote on the nomination of michelle friedman. if cloture is invoked, there would be up to 30 hours for debate prior to vote on the confirmation. unless an agreement can be reached upon disposition of the friedman nomination, there will be a cloture vote on the weill

nomination to be administrator of the wage and hour division over at the department of labor. there could be up to eight hours of debate prior to a vote on confirmation of the weill nomination. if floss further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until is a good during the reagan administration

outside group of former members of congress and no politicians that come in and do a complete audit of government from top to bottom. they have a piece of legislation or charter that created it. it has a purpose if it is not fulfilling its purpose or doing it within a reasonable budget it should be cut or eliminated. let's take head start. this came in with the highest motivation. did you know there are three had starts, there's early head start, advanced and regular head start. why do we have the other to? because the first one wasn't working.

>> if you continue to send people here who have no world ml experience, no hardship, no difficulty, no success in life outside politics you will continue to get the same results. that's why we need a constitutional convention that will put term limits. you eliminate a lot of what goes on here. the other thing that will open up more seats for the people that have real world experience to be competitive in terms of coming up here to fix this but that's only one part of what you can do. you're not going to fix it in washington today. i am convinced i will have spent

16 years in congress and i continue to be disappointed every day at the lack of foresight and judgment, the lack of long-term thinking and critical decision-making that occurs. >> surgeons general from the army, navy and air force testified on capitol hill before the senate appropriations subcommittee. the hearing focused on the 2015 appropriations for its hold programs. buthe defense program determined budget is the mechanism they used to fund healthcare for active duty and other eligible military beneficiaries.

>> good morning and welcome to the subcommittee. we are going to start early because the senator has to get to the floor on an issue pending before us and when we call for the vote at 11:00 we want to have her participation and as much time as possible. before we begin the hearing this morning, i'm going to ask all who are gathered here today standing for a moment of silence for those that died last week's tragic shooting at fort hood including daniel ferguson, carlos rodriguez and illinois native sergeant. would you all please rise.

>> thank you very much. i would like to welcome the witnesses, the look in a general patricia from the surgeon general of the army, vice admiral matthew nation, surgeon general of the navy, lieutenant general thomas travis of the air force and christopher miller, program executive officer for the defense management healthcare systems. our hearing today focuses on the well-being of our service members and its paramount on our minds. one of the responses to the shooting on april 2 has been asked questions about how we support our troops as they deal with stress from long overseas deployments, personal relationships, financial stress and so many other things. i am not going to speculate about what happened that caused the tragedy at fort hood. the investigation will have to answer those questions but in an

interview with the "washington post" this weekend, the former vice chief of staff at the army stated efforts to hire more mental health clinicians, those efforts are hamstrung by the same shortages that affect the entire country. this is an alarming statement for the retired general who's put so much work into how we deal with posttraumatic stress. the subcommittee is interested in the assessment of the defense department network and care for service members and families and we may never know the cause of the tragedy at fort hood said last week's tragedy shows even if one of the best military bases in the world, with a reputation for mental health excellence there are problems that still exist. the subcommittee is committed to identifying strategies to confront those problems. we are caring for the psychological health of the service members remains a serious challenge to treatments for battlefield medicine have

been enormous, and proved targets and compounds like tree hemorrhages have given the service members extra minutes in arms that literally make the difference between life and death. thanks to the research efforts, the military personnel in iraq and afghanistan survived and are surviving at a rate of two or three times that of the vietnam war. it's nothing short of a miraculous revolution. these advances don't stop at the battlefield or level one hospitals. amazing research affecting the quality of life of the generation that's wounded warriors has been emerging. here's a picture i will show the army specialist who i met last month when he was in washington. september, 2006 he was on patrol in baghdad, a bomb ripped his humvee and he lost his legs. the advances in medical research saved his life and gave him an opportunity to inspire a nation. when he arrived up all to read

he said he wanted to learn how to walk again and again he's a strange thing happened. he decided instead he wanted to run. he played soccer, he never ran competitively so he started training. 360 days after his amputation he had his first ten k.. ..