of the $10 billion that was set aside for that program is needed if it is not fully utilized and in case, for example more veterans than we expect seek healthcare within the va system so what we were trying to deal with is to give flexibility in the resources to deal with some of the uncertainty that we have given that this is a new program and we are not sure how many veterans would choose either to remain in the va system or to seek healthcare using their choice card. ..

what the president is proposing is to reform what is a broken system, and to fund infrastructure with the one time revenue. >> just to be specific about that, what the voluntary repatriation does is actually encourage profits to be held overseas going forward and therefore, it ends up being scored as costing a lot of money, as jeff said, rather than saving money. >> alexis, let me give you the last one. >> two quick ones. one for you josh and one for shaun. josh, can you describe the president's thinking about

arming ukraine? and shaun, for you, republicans are interested in the whole idea of dynamic scoring and i want to ask you what kind of challenges that presents to the administration going forward if republicans create their budget proposals and try to calculate the dynamic element of their features of their budget. >> well, alexis, i think i read the steam at the same store you did. there are a lot of people who apparently, through one way or another, are making their views known on this policy area. i can say that the president's view continues to be that this administration needs to be continually assessing what our strategy is to further isolate the putin regime in russia. to convince them to reevaluate their strategy in ukraine. and the strategy that we have implemented so far succeeded in uniting the international

community of respecting the territorial integrity and sovereignty of other countries. it has also succeeded in enforcing a sanctions regime against the russian economy that has succeeded in devaluing their currency, causing many independent debt evaluators to downgrade -- [inaudible] it is caused longer-term projections about the economy to be revised downward into negative territory. just about any measure you consider, the russian economy has taken a big hit because of the strategic decisions that president putin has made as it relates to ukraine. so that pressure is only continue to intensify, and it has served to isolate them. but it has not as we've acknowledged cost him at this point to live up to the kinds of diplomatic commitments he has

previously made to the estimate the situation in ukraine. we are continually assess what's are the options are available but i sort don't have anything new to announce at this point. and there are of course a wide variety of opinions about this, but when we have anything to announce on the we will let you know. >> and just a dynamic scoring to be clear, the current cbo practice, which we support, is to do a range of what we would call supplementary analyses. and that includes using some of these dynamic models to look at what the potential range of effects could be on macroeconomic factors so that policymakers can understand and think about those. the problem of taking what are right now speculative and broad

ranging analyses that are not used for budget scoring is that the range of uncertainty in doing these is a vast, from the point of certain kinds of tax changes might actually grow the economy. they might actually shrink them. and so the problem is, and this has been the longtime practice of cbo directors for decades, is highly speculative and uncertain kinds of effects like that, to take them in as scorable savings or costs on any significant bill. really, the ability of policymakers to understand and to do accurate budget. and this is not something that in the past has been -- it's been an agreement that looking at this information is helpful but to actually use it for

scoring is highly problematic in terms of eating able to really get to precise understanding of what budgeting looks like going forward. >> thanks, everybody, for all of you. if you have additional questions, certainly we will be available to answer detailed questions. thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> if you missed any of that briefing is available on the c-span video library. go to c-span.org. we will go to transition to the pentagon for a series of budget presentations. there was an overview which aired earlier which you will be able see on our website c-span.org. right now we're into some of the specific briefings from the individual military branches. this one got away just a couple of moments ago.

>> the next slide just gives you again some of the basic facts about where the money is by military department and by the major areas of expenditure in the budget on personnel are operating cost, investment costs. basically what you'll see on this chart if you look at increasing last year to this year, what is it you're getting when our budget increases, about 40% of it is on operate inside that about 60% on the investing in the future site. the personnel costs go up only slightly but it should be noted the size of of the force actually decreases somewhat so this speaks to the point that we're trying to control the growth of compensation cost, not cutting people's compensation. even when the size of the force is stable or slightly declining our personal cost are still rising, although to most of investment we're trying to put into readiness and also investing in the future. the next slide describe some of the resource trade-offs and some of the constraint we have. the deputy has littered to some

of the issues that have been lasted just in time from and we submitted a budget a year ago to today, russian aggression in eastern europe the rise of a result, the ebola mission the department was sent to help out on. we know that the nation expects us to have a ready capable flexible force to respond to unforeseen events like that and our troops everything we've asked of them but we have to come we feel we have have a higher budget to address, to keep the force ready to respond to unforeseen events like that to dig out of the readiness hold we are in him to look toward the future on some of the issues that are here. i think the deputy has also alluded to the fact that the planning that went on really assumed that would have some ability as we saw intimate the president's policy to draw down forces in afghanistan as the forces will be able to come

home, get some time with the families reset trained. the pace of world operations has hampered of that. so that's where the challenges described on this chart that require us we believe to step of our game and make it a challenge for us to try and do what we have been doing at the funding levels we've been at if you want us if you want to stick indeed to the to the court to force in the future. as i said in my introduction briefly, the force structure, the size of military that is that we believe we need to support is roughly the same as what we have been saying in terms of in strength, in terms of the size of the nuclear triad come in terms of nature operational units like the number of ships, the number tactical fighter wings. so shouldn't any surprises here to those of you like those in this room who follow this issue closely. we have as i think was described earlier slowed some of the ramp on in strength to allow people a little more time in breathing

space, but the endpoints are not moving. last year's budget i can address that later but we have straightened that out in this years budget request. we also have some of the same proposals to the extent some which were agreed in all some which were agreed in part some which were not agree to at all. lastlester goes a mixed bag and just tried to mention a few, the army aviation restructure and the air force probably got the most headlines i think of anything last year. base closure -- [inaudible] compensation is a good example were some troubles were agreed to, some were agreed to in part and some were not agree to idle. so this is probably doesn't do justice to the complexity, just to list some of the topics on the slide. akin to the extent that things were not agree to in general the department believes the proposals were made with a quick proposals, necessary proposals and coming back to submit those again.

there are also things where we have moderated based on real-world changes come in particular the demand for isr continued tight, especially once we started deploying to the inherent resolve an issue in iraq and the city. so we have moderated the phaseout of the youtube from last year by three years from 2016-2019. so the our changes we've made as well but many of the things we think fundamentally were the right proposals and we're sticking with them. -- u2. the next slide list some of the major modernization programs and i know you probably have a chance just to quickly look at these are not going to didn't read you these numbers, and their many more details in the document to depart his posting today budget at the line item level. i would say that just to pick out one, that kerry overall is an example of something that last one of budget was down we said we just can't afford to do this. at a higher level we are requesting a we feel we can't

afford to remain 11 carriers but that is continue pumping up at higher level. if we had to come down i'm confident that our basic will be again that we couldn't afford to sit up at 11 carriers if we have 2% of the $496 billion level going forward. but that's example of something that we make a difference and will be many examples think that wanted to be discussed throughout the year, what is it you can afford to do at this higher level. we are opposing -- we are proposing is not affordable for low we are at. these are not of course all of the notable items and we will be followed today by the army navy, air force missile defense agency. just tick example something that is not on the slide. i think there's probably a good news story on some of the vehicle modernizations something that does get made as much attention but the so called a&e, some of these programs have a pretty healthy increase over last year's level so many more things that you can delve into as we go through all the parts department rollout today.

in addition i think the deputy alluded to the fact that we had a good back and forth inside the administration over the fall of some issues that were important to all of us. many of you probably have quite american for example, the nuclear enterprise review which is not necessarily only or even primarily about money. i would say there was over 100 recommendations and maybe 20% involved money. this is an example out of touch on this overlaid as well of things, things that are priorities of the secretary of the department, are not misled the biggest budget things in all cases. space is something that a significant funding as well as significant new concern going forward and this is not just about 16 in the case of space but also the future years as well. we have space, when we talk about modernization and 80 to address future in looking at

eroding technological superiority, these are primarily the top of various we are talking about where we are investing and we can talk later about some of the particular munitions. some these areas are classified and we can talk about them in exquisite detail but there's things we can talk about. on the next slide the innovation area something that is important. the deputy i think has spoken to this i will continue to do so. undersecretary general as well. i know i could do this justice compared to the deputy but we are trying to be a flavor on the slide some of the innovation efforts which again are not only about money are also about a we are thinking and approaching problems where he's trying to move the department forward to some of the particular programs listed here i think probably are familiar with in particular the rail gun effort is probably the most well-known of the things on this slide. undersecretary kendall also future strongly about the innovation initiative which i believe he testified on to some extent last week in front of the

house. when we get to readiness i was going to ask the general ramsay to talk a little bit about the near-term sight of what i described this budget addresses both near-term readiness as well as longer-term readiness and modernization. >> welcome good afternoon. i have to slice i want to touch over and then the three services and missile defense agency will follow and give you more feedback on registered it is because i go through these two sides want to point out the first ball at each of the areas is what kind of a look in the rearview mirror over the last couple years about how we survived a bipartisan budget act of what the services are able to to to get back towards a more full structure readiness posture. the second bulletin is really what this fiscal year president's budget 2016 does in the area of readiness. we have spent an awful lot of time in the readiness area at least the last three budget cycles since i've been in this job. what is will become obvious over those three years is readiness

is a very difficult, a very complex area to understand because it has a lot of moving parts. one of the things we're able to do is we have put about as much resources as we can into readiness to try to get back to full spectrum recovery. all the services at the '16 budget level all things being equal, operations temple being but what is today a north strategic surprises in the world is on track for about 2020. the air force since we are biasing towards capability over capacity and readiness in the near-term taking near-term risk they are more a tractor about 2023. the events of the last year caused us to go back and we look at this. we had i wouldn't go surprises but every single year in the world there are events that unfold that we had not planned to do. it is impossible to plan to do them but some of the greatest things that really came to the floor this your work do lots of things that affected it. it's not just throwing money at the problem. forces have have the time to

reset. for example, on the army it is to get back to full spectrum readiness after 13 years of counterinsurgency. they are heavy forces, combat forces me to rotations for the national trendsetter to really achieve that level of readiness. that alone takes money and that alone takes time. there are other forces air force forces, some army forces, for example, have not come as we thought because they are doing other things in order to account orisis, counter ice campaign is eating up a lot of air force's, and the isr we thought that was going to come out of afghanistan to come home is going to that region of the world. we are moving these read and respond to what the nation calls upon us to do. each story has readiness challenges. the army and air force are primarily garrisoned back on station with some forward deployed basis. they're trying to the rotation rates set but again up a template denying us in some places the time and forces to do that. the challenge for the department

and navy and the marine corps and the navy force themselves really are two big challenges. one of those is being able to reset their aviation arms, especially older model f-18s. all the services to some degree have a couple backlog we're working through. that backlog is a long-standing issue. we know is coming. it's been built up with 13 years of continuous combat, the nation's longest were as well as the hole we dug with sequestration in 2013. or that was really dug up on us if you will. so the navy as a backlog of ships to get to the shipyards and we're working the alpha delta model f-18s through the backlog as well. if you go to the next slide just touch reprinted on special operations command. they are rebalancing geographically, filling out the theater special operation command and the geographic combatant commands. it largely been i wouldn't sit untouched by readiness. they have their challenge as well but their reasoning their force again from a largely in afghanistan to being that the global distributed counter

intelligence force and that will take time as well. if i can go onto the next slide please. i have to slice to prevent touch upon for compensation. this is another area that the department has been a great deal of time on. the last several years. just to tee up on the slide and are going to read it, there's guiding principles that we is that if you go look at what the president told the commission that reported about earlier, the entire middle to compensation and retirement modernization largely followed the same principles. just make sure you all understand, this budget submission doesn't reflect that can mission's recommendation. they were an independent blue-ribbon commission to be used department had to make sure their recommendations used to crack the starting set but in terms of the recognition they were not depend on the department. we're looking at those recommendations but our submission does not include the recommendations. if i could go to the next slide. if you recall the president's budget last year had a package of pay and compensation

recommendations that we felt were necessary, want to this point very hard, to help us balance the capacity of the force, the capabilities for santa readiness of the force. the dollars we save in 10 compensation last year and this year, went back to the services to help balance out readiness and capability. and maintained that capacity. to get the kind of meat and bone of this whole thing to ask what you all to recall that in the qdr report from last year, admiral winnefeld talked about the construct but but there are three page story at page 39 that detail the capacity of the force, only set how big the forces going to be. we have to go back and look at how the force is compensated because the military personnel in the department are the strength of this nation in the military but we consume us uniform personal about 36% of the budget. we look under every rock.

we have been on a path that we felt we had to slow the rate of growth of pay and, session. say we are largely to this let's me the same package we did last year with a few minor adjustments. we found i will say a locale disparity in our competition for how we do try to. they were certain locales within a force active duty congress to pay a copayment. that has been eliminated. we are asking this year for 1.3% military pay raise the president will ask for a 1.3% civil servant pay raise so the pay raise our match. on the comments are benefit our changes it is you're going to be all a operating the commissary more like a business. they will take some efficiency overhead reductions. we are looking for some flexibility so some legal changes to allow the pricing structure to be changed a little bit. some of it the way the food products are transported to the commissaries and looking at

flexibility on how the member surcharge that would pay, the 5% users pay, how that surcharge can be spent. and lasso we're going to ask congress to approve the same tricare and the same pharmacy changes as last year. >> thanks, mark. let me just turn to the next slide about institutional reform, and i'm not going to read any of it to you. just to make the point that even to the cfo open or position that everything is about money and we do not just asked for my every time we have a challenge to address. i just wanted to take a second intervaland the role of breaking your to recognize some of the efforts come one or two of which are my butt across the department to manage this institution better and to take care of our people. probably the most notable here is sexual the fault -- an important effort to the white house, to the congress as well as the department. secretary hagel's initiative on reorganizing missing personnel

organization i think was just announced friday i believe about a month ago frank kendall signed out a new dod 5002. a lot of effort across the department to manage this institution as well as we can. and again everything has some relation to the budget but these are not primarily budget driven things. just wanted to give some context with the senior leadership is spending its time on as well. if i could just take a second to discuss the war funding, the ocoa budget. as the deputy mentioned $51 billion is that reduction over two-thirds from the level that was prevailing reflecting the drawdown from iraq and afghanistan, even with the counter i so mention -- mission reduction to but the $50 billion level compared to $64 billion last year over 100 many years prior to that. the broad contours are of course more to people i think, it just want to mention that for areas

there were 40 things we asked last year over the course of really starting from the president's speech at west point in they and then progressing on throughout the fall, new characters and partnership funds comefunds, the new european reassurance initiative and then training and equipping the iraqi army, and a new proposal to train and equip the moderate syria opposition to all these were new in one respect or another last year. all of them were a bit of a challenge working with congress to get them to agree to things that we're doing different, which is always just harder for people for things that are not the senior to you. got a fair degree of support. we got pretty much full support of european initiative last you. let's support on the counterterrorism partnership fund and more restrictions than we had sought. all these things though were greeted in some form or another last year. all of the marketing under budget again this year.

just mention the european reassurance initiative is conceptually a unified hold but you'll find in the budget spread out into the place which is the way that congress gave it is last year. so respecting have a change the proposal last you we've asked for it anymore distributive fashion but we brought together for purposes of display an explanation here on this slide. the process and the rules can we develop these rules, some as the a lot of time on my first couple of years here in 2009-2010 with the office of management and budget and what was and what was not ocoa money. there's nothing new here other than these four new proposal to address particular situations that i described and any plan to change that will require additional relief on base budget. i think that is followed by a pie chart that maybe shows the same thing. thing. so onerous summary slide and i would get to questions, i just wanted to say we think we have

as a vice chairman has indicated the joint chiefs agree, good budget that makes the right choices for national security. we be happy to talk later on the year if need be about what the mighty as alternative for that but we believe congress should accept and should look strongly on come with support honors of proposal to fund this level above what is allowed by the budget control act by the budget control act. i show the president has been consistent ever since the budget control act was signed in not conceding this cluster was the right answer for defense spending, or nondefense spending or for the country. has consistently proposed budgets that were what we felt was headed to address the national security threat in this budget is no different in that respect. >> if i can follow up on ocoa overseas contingency operations. considering there's only supposed to be about 5000 troops

in afghanistan, still an awful lot of money soc with those operations as that one pie chart, over 40 billion in afghanistan and other nations. to what degree is that money directly related to operations in afghanistan and to what degree, for instance $60 million towards other theater operations identical in places like this. is this the true cost of the war or are you folding into the cause as well? >> we followed the same rules the whole time that we've been here. so this is no deviation from that. it includes cost of both directly agreed on the ground in country as well as cost, support structure in the theater and that ranges from forces in bahrain to kuwait. has been the case for many years. >> but those are basis presumably will stay around for a while. so i mean, after next year right now the number of troops is supposed to go down to

nothing but were still going to see contingency operations through at least 2020 and that is if it's a question is listed? >> it sequester is lifted you see, which i haven't had a chance to review this morning myself, but the proposal that we worked together in executive in the executive branch to work with congress to move some of those costs are what takes place in the central command region to the base budget should circumstances allow us to do so. the department is not able to absorb those costs within a fixed topline, however. >> i guess the question, if the war ends why can't that be done quicker, the transition? >> it can be done as quickly as a larger budget negotiation allows. but again, it sequester he is not lifted it is in our view not doable to shove all those cost back into the base budget without transition. >> go back to basic point.

realize what we're doing in afghanistan, the drawdown you talk about boots on the ground is not only a drawdown for dollars. celtics have some the things providing troops that are left are for obvious reasons is isr. was not brought down the number of isr orbits commensurate with the number of troops. even though our troops are inside the wire to train advice and assistance helping to build a force them were still of the kind make sure those troops inside the garrison are sick. it's not that there is no linear direct building. [inaudible] you've mentioned and deputy sectors mentioned the important of innovation. there's the defense defense initiative. not having is not mine but is there -- presumably touched and very places. is there way to get a big picture of this which is a very high priority to keep our tactical edge? >> as you know we have we have a more blunt instrument type that is if you on how much we've done research and development or

the tech face. we have not to my knowledge attended the figure on just what we call innovation because one man's invention might be another man's more incremental change. so we'll get back to for the record if there's a number we want to put on that but it was more of, the deputy describes it as a particular set of issues that he works on that i don't think that we necessarily have a dollar figure we want to put, only these things are innovation. >> also greeted by the program we are seeing or is that still too early? >> we will have to get back to you on that. >> thank you. a couple of questions. we will services submit an unfunded priorities list to congress this year as far as you know? number one. and number two, on the compensation reform question is there anything in the budget that puts would be out of sync with the compensation reform that has been proposed by the

commission? >> well, let me answer the second one first. as you know the compensation commission worked independently of us and the respected that and we respected that, so we got about as long to read it as you since last thursday think it was that it was briefed and they held the press conference but i think there are some areas, areas that they addressed and we did not come and there are areas we addressed and areas they did not. there's a couple, second health care where we have independently been addressed the same thing. we have, we we the department of the present our views and analysis, and then he insurance owes the recommendation or an opinion on these recommendations to the congress i believe in 60 days. they are not going to see a lot of comment prior to that until we've had a chance to do some analysis. and then make a recommendation to the president and then work with him on what the administration position on this will be. i think will be some

differences, but what position we will take on areas where they have made us to do something we haven't addressed is premature for us to say today. i believe the first question was on unfunded lives. i would simply chiefs would probably continue best practice, but for me at least on the day we're releasing the budget it's too early to comment about what people don't like about it already. >> sir, there's been a lot of change -- and i'm curious there were two launches earmarked in your booklet that are going to be put up for competition but what are those launches? and can you give us an idea of when you do your planning, how much are you saving by including new interest, had you only had one provider? >> okay, i'm going to ask the air force is coming up later today to give you more precise information that i would be able

to on launches. >> okay. you have anything? >> i would be guessing that you say there are two launches? >> that's what the booklet says. >> yes. >> mr. secretary, do you have an estimate of the efficiencies of reform, how much money that's worth, and is that make into the budget or is that something you would incorporate in your budget once congress approves those? >> okay. i think there's three parts to the answer to that. first, there have been efficiencies just about every budget that i've been here. this is 15. a specialist on with fy '12 when secretary gates was here. efficiencies that had numerical targets attached to them by you and where the money was taken out by the comptroller organization up front. and so 16 the year the budget

we're spending now, there's about $70 billion of the efficiencies or harvesting or making tough choices and spending less on things that were deemed the lower priority. so that could be maybe recapping our facility that will slow already, for example. efficiencies in the word that gets used loosely to describe both getting the same output for less money as well as just doing without something because it's a lower priority and you don't have the funding. but using that broader definition, the fy 60 budget has from four previous rounds fy '12, 30, 40 50 about $70 billion already baked into it, to use your phrase. said i described a number of institutional reform efforts that are coming to make this place run better to a fault prevention response reorganizing missing persons office, never things like that that are not hide to a dollar target per se.

third on the slide and that of institutional reform, just a very brief reference, possibly a cryptic one joint effort the deputy secretaries has undertaken with the defense to look at some fundamental crosscutting areas of our enterprise like human resources management, financial management, the supply chain. those efforts are still in development and there is not a dollar target big into or taken out of work assumed for those efforts. the deputy and his leadership are moving toward a trying to have it ready for the fy '17 budget. >> what about the compensation reform come is that baked into the budget? >> right. i was in characterizing those them and as efficiencies as opposed to policy proposal but yes those are baked into the budget. because, right put a price tag on doing them for not doing them, they have their face and how many people to apply to

comment center. so those things has in the past after last year's budget have dollar a sergeant or savings built into the budget and spread throughout the departments accounts. >> thank you. on brac is a current estimate on how much access they give researchers and do you anticipate cards will accept another round of barack? >> well, the estimate on excess capacity probably heard figures used in the low 20% andrew slavitt of a catch-22 there in that we have been sort of enjoying from doing really detailed updates of that which is basically when you start a brac round. so the figure is a few years old because we are having come we are constrained from doing really the kind of work you really do to get a more precise number. i think congress will ultimately agree to brac? i do but in my previous life i worked on capitol hill for many years and i spent five years working with senator mccain's staff, for example, at the time to get authority for what turned

into 2005 brac. we started back in 1997. so it took doesn't necessarily happen overnight. in this case it certainly has not but i think the case is still compelling. i would believe any person running a business in a company large or small would say every 10 to 12 years if he had a large organization like this would've the time to look at your physical footprint and see if it was still relevant to your needs. and so it's now been 10 years in 2015 since the last round. we're asking around 2012 years since we will have since last round but this is just a number things i think the department has proposed whether it's on the a-10 looking at maybe something that's an older not as broadly, you know, single mission asset. so whether it's trying to control compensation costs or for that matter prioritize force structure, i think these are the

types of things things you expect your decision to try to stay competitive in a dynamic world to do. with that more of a challenge with onboard getting these things agree to that effect most organizations do by think you've seen this budget we continue to propose things we think are the right and the rational way to respond to a changing world and redirect resources to hire reorders. >> one of the things congress tells us lesko butchers is to show we just announced european infrastructure reductions in the last several months. so we've done our piece of that and we're very comfortable with where that is. >> two things. you had one set of $5 billion, is that funded separately from the navy ship construction that congress agreed to create a separate fund but there was no money in it? how are you funny the 1.5 billion? the other one, you indicated you were continuing the

modernization program to the navy budget does reflect that. they continue they should 22 operational cruisers, only -- more confused on that program. >> sure. let me answer your to in order to you hire replacement program is funded and researched account. so we are still a couple years out from actually buying the first ship so that's still in the r&d account as it traditionally has been. ended on the cruiser modernization, again the navy is proposing as i understand it to do what is consistent with the legislation last year with the restrictions. so it's less than everything they asked for last year but still doing cruiser modernization. but again a navy vessel later today and they can probably explain in greater fidelity. >> transitioning, you mentioned continued upon repeal

sequestration but is that the only condition, full repeal of what a short-term deal motivate you to craft that plan? >> well -- >> outline -- [inaudible] >> i don't know how likely the full repeal this. sequester has about six more years to live on the books fy '16 through 21. the good of them were talking about is almost to the end of the period anyway so in my mind i view them as a common time from in that we're talking forward a deal. >> said as i would be enough play and? >> i can't rule out what omb and the unity and the congress might agree to if it was under the short term to which assortment of possibility, but what we had in mind so far and we're still a little early in discussion between ourselves and omb on this is longer-term, something that gave us conference on the way ahead, which is something i do know that we have been lacking.

>> the budget documents talk, and you guys mention and your grave, investment in base writ large and protecting american assets in space. the budget request for states seem to go down from 7.4 last year to 7.1 issue. i wonder if you could talk to broadly about why that money is going down and also what sort of you're your trying to do here to sort of protect space assets in this budget? >> thank you. this is probably the first of many awkward answers you might get on the subject. the vast majority of the efforts that we are undertaking in this area are highly classified and we're going to struggle to explain them i fear, other than two or committees behind closed doors which all we tried to start doing.

i guess in general terms we're looking at resilience, looking at the better situational awareness, looking at securing both medications and mark, i don't know there's other things you want to add here. the other thing i would also say is that initiative commits a multiyear thing and the funding level for this year is actually relatively flat, more investment are going to face in overtime as you know many states that are developed almost one-of-a-kind and so pixel time is usually researched involved in changing the space architecture. >> and that the risk of another awkward answer, is there more to protect existing assets for more to improve protections for future assets? >> it's really both. it's a range of programs. >> i am noticing your geopolitical challenge slide that you listed quote russian

activities in ukraine above arise in iceberg is that a prevailing view in this building, russia's activities in ukraine are more important than the rise of isil? >> no, i would not say the slide was meant to convey a relative judgment just by the placement. i think what it was big to come is more often than i do, where the chairman is in particular is that sort of taking on board what russia's activities mean for the department going for is something that is not still a work in progress and this budget is not meant to reflect the final answer what changes in posture old when might be necessity but russian activity. the european reassurance initiative that we have this year tracks pretty closely to what we had last in terms of particular -- rotational presence in europe and giving us additional time to develop of those policies further. >> and i would say mentioned the european infrastructure announcement a couple of months

ago. infrastructure was in the western part of your the european is without the eastern frontier of nato. but we did -- >> we have done a lot of work on that and we cycle back through it again to square it with where we needed to be given russian activity to make sure that we still were happy with all the proposals, and one or two or maybe take off the table that otherwise might of been agreed to do. >> if they were to be increased illegal aid to the ukrainian government, does that factor into your -- [inaudible] >> let us respond to the record on the. i delivered is any but let us get the deputy and for the record. >> 80 billion requested classified, 5 billion is for non-dod and other agencies. why so much like 17% of the whole request. >> i would say if you look overtime that there's been a

healthy and heavy intelligence component to ocoa spending, four years. and this is no different. [inaudible] >> no. >> second question. rhetorically, there's there is a dearth of detail in your insurance of what the specific impacts -- to what extent do the services crafted detail plan be sequestration level budgets for the joint staff are for you coming to what extent will the people that at some point so that you might be able to mobilize some public support to pressure congress to roll back sequestration if they have a better handle on consequences than just saying it's going to be an unmanageable risk? >> i'll ask mark to comment. there's a couple parts to this. we did come last year as we did

that you before when we developed the budget to do some work on developing an alternate level, basically the year before we had a full five year plan at a sequence level as well as the level we actually supported. we just got a lot of complaints were crushing the workforce with multiple levels of detail while people were dealing with sequester in the real world and every other kind of challenge getting ready for audit. this year we tried to be more streamlined and focused a little more on 16 but as opposed to having a full alternate reality five year plan for everything. so the budget we're 70 today as not about sequester but it's about what we think is the right answer for the nation. i think will be a time and place to talk with sequester as an alternative i don't think today is that day. we need to make the case for what we think is right for the country and right for national security. senator mccain had a hearing you know the of the whoopie pie chance to talk about sequester

to some degree. last year the department released a publication giving some examples of major moves. not every single line item but major examples of what would be different under sequester. and i think that document will be forthcoming again this year. it's not a budget document per se. it's not the presidents only approved one funding profile for the department and that's what we're here to explain. i think if and when you are and imagine this will come up in future hearings, there may be hearings specifically devoted to sequestration beyond the one that was held last week. and i think at that time hopefully we would have a chance to have the chairman or the vice chairman because under the vice-chairman -- that a joint war fighting impact would be useful to what would be specific impact on input by how much would you buy, how may people would you have to cut. mark? >> its proper with going back and looking at the 2014 document we produced last year refresh

now. >> when might you come up with a refresh document but otherwise this is like an alice's in budget land briefing disconnected from political reality. >> i would take issue with it. every year we've added budget since the budget control act was signed we've asked for something higher than sequester and every year we've gotten something higher than sequester. so we've not gotten 100% of what we've asked for but stating what we think we need it has been useful and productive, and it's the right place to start. >> the vice-chairman said its strategy driven resource. this is what we need to defend the country. >> we have time for just a few more. >> can you talk a little bit about the airspace initiative? if there is a need for a new type of fighter -- why continue to buy them?

>> okay, first of all i would say under-secretary will build do this more justice than i. i was not able to listen to his testimony last week to see exactly what he could detail he describes income and are classified as with unclassified elements to it. i would say that we're talking about pretty far down the road, not as an alternative to the joint strike fighter but what follows the joint strike fighter so don't think there's a conflict between buying jsf and looking at what type of man or unmanned vehicles you might view way down the road. >> i was his battle buddy adhering to its beyond fighter aircraft. it really is. it really is the future of air dominance, how to dominate and air combat. that whole host of things that are all about driving and developing technology for 40, 50 years down the road in the future. if we don't do that today we will not stay ahead of our potential adversaries.

>> i have a question -- the challenge for modern china to kenya chose anything about in this budget that the strategy -- >> the rebounds asia pacific strategy? ensure. we don't produce a budget exhibit which may be why you ask that this would discourage these items are part of the strategy and other items are not, but let me just describe some of the major things that have been consistent in your budget. i think we first public describe this in our '13 budget so this is something we've been pursuing for many years. just hearken back to my opening theme, pretty consistent on. shifting the assets we have from the naval assets to be 50/50 atlantic pacific 40-60 40, that

continue to some of the major construction and modernization footprint moves that we've had anywhere in the world the last couple of years have been at camp humphreys and then the movement with the government of japan that in concert from okinawa to guam. those continue and we so as you know it's a progress report on the front especially to present his budget last year with general rants in terms of permit and other political progress as well as environmental studies being completed. many of the assets we described i know we would very quickly through some of things we're buying in this budget, submarines and some of the munitions, long range bomber are all applicable of course worldwide but particularly in the area of large distances like the pacific. mark, you may want to add one or two others. >> i think he hit the high points. we've had a very robust diplomatic effort as well for

military engagement in the western pacific for some years now, and that's not going to be abate anytime soon. we'll be engaged and keep the rebounds on track. >> good point. i neglected to mention the agreement with the australians and the philippines a. >> that's about all the time we have. thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> today is budget day as president obama has released his budget proposal which you can see online at c-span.org. we are showing your budget briefings for the defense department. there have been several.

coming up shortly we will have a briefing from the department of the army and that will be followed by the other branches of the military. we'll have that in about 10 minutes here on c-span2. if we get to that though a look now at the overall military budget that begins this a series of briefings. >> well, good afternoon ladies and gentlemen and. thank you for joining us. we previewed the fy 2016 defense budget request. my time with you, i would like to hit three key things. one, we believe very strongly that this is a strategy driven resource informed budget that meets 21st century national security needs of our great nation. second, the surest path come in our view, to resource driven strategy derived budget is to keep sequestration caps in

effect in fy 2016 and beyond, and accordingly as i will detail in a moment, and as mike mccord and mark ramsay will talk to you later we will submit a budget that is above the sequestration enacted caps. third, even at the present budget level, which is above the sequestration caps, trying to achieve a healthy balance between capacities, or size of the force the capabilities of that force what it's able to do, and the readiness of that force to respond to challenges will remain a constant challenge. and this is especially true with regard to maintain our technological superiority in the 21st century. our defense strategy as outlined in the 2014 qdr. we're not going to go over it very much year but i commend it all to do if you haven't seen. a cause for joy forced to defend the homeland, conduct a global

counter bashing characters and campaign primarily supporters whenever possible and wherever possible. and multiple theaters to assure our friends and allies to deter potential adversaries. this is the strategy that is designed to preserve u.s. global leadership and help preserve global peace in the 21st century. like it or not america remains the global first security responder of choice as we've seen this past year when the u.s. first led nato in responding to russian aggression in the crimea and ukraine. then form an international coalition to fight against isil and iraq and syria. and, finally to respond to the ebola crisis in western africa. these responses, top of an already very volatile security environment that many of you in the shin i don't need to tell you much about. but it requires a lot of our joint force. today there's about 211000 servicemen and women around the

world in 136 countries trying to preserve the peace. or fighting against our adversaries. in this very stressing a volatile environment, we constantly try to scrutinize whether our strategy for structure and global allocation of forces, if they are aligned with what we see happening in the world and if it's keeping pace with emerging threats. and that the requested levels we believe quite strongly that this budget is the best balance of inscom ways and means that we could possibly achieve. given the level of resources. we're asking for $534 billion in fy 2016. that's $36 billion above the fy 2016 sequestration caps -- >> an overview of the army today and it's fiscal posture and spent some time provide a second level of detail about the army's

funding requirement that we've submitted in our budget request. next slide, please. i started his presentation by providing a little context behind our request by giving you an appreciation of what america's army is doing and where we are serving around the world. as you can see from the map before you, america's soldiers are conducting operations in virtually every corner of the globe, and in every combatant commanders area of operation. in the pacific theater a loan, over 50,000 men and women serving in our army are forward base in this critical region of the world. conducting a spectrum of operations ranging from deterrence to rachel engagement operations like pacific pathway. and the southern command the army continues to support joint task force gitmo in guantánamo bay and joint task force bravo in honduras. in the european command, the nation has over 28,000 soldiers on the ground as we've seen every new the level of activity

involving army units. many of these soldiers are sporting operation atlantic resolve the provides our european allies assurance of u.s. commitment in the region and america's opposing russian aggression and supporting ukraine's democracy. in the nation's africa command the army soldiers are supporting joint task force operations in of the horn of africa and more recently, operation united assistance to combat the ebola outbreak in western africa. the middle east continues to be very active, and a dangerous area of the world with over 20,000 army soldiers deployed in six of the 20 countries in the central command area of responsibility. in addition to operation freedom sentinel which many of you might remember was formerly called operation enduring freedom in afghanistan, we are providing advise you assistance to our jordanian counterparts who are hosting syrian refugees in the country. we are also providing support to

include training and equipping to the iraqi security forces who are combating a formidable isil threat. with this much widespread activity requiring a trained and ready land force presence throughout the globe the u.s. army has nine of his 10 headquarters currently deployed in forward station. i took the time to share this with you because i want to emphasize that not only are we a very busy army but if you were to juxtapose this map against last year's with you before community that the u.s. army is supporting more and more operations that's the world continues to experience an increase velocity of instability this alone makes the point that america's army needs to be resourced to not only be trained and ready to address any number of emerging nations which may arise, to have an effective engagement capability to regionally allied forces that can ultimately overtime help prevent some of these crises

from mature. through this regionally aligned capability the u.s. army can shape the strategic security environment with the aim of forgoing any force on force kinetic operations that may develop. should efforts to prevent and shape the security environment not yield the intended results then, of course we want our nation's army to continue to be the most formidable land force in the world, capable of winning on any battlefield. next slide, please. it is viable to start looking at the army's budget over time and provide a little commentary that may inform your views of the army's current funding request. as you can only see from the chart the army's budget in both the base and the overseas contingency operations has been on the decline since its high water mark in the year 2008. ..

>>

>> that was a to billion dollars less. this started the army on head downward trend aggravated in 2012 and we were funded at the sequestered level covered by the budget control act of 2011. this had a huge impact on ready is an impact it all to a not ready status. in 2014 temporary sequestration was provided by the bipartisan budget act and you can see in the charred we spend $126 billion against a request of $130 billion. this allowed us to buy back readiness but it did not happen in one year's time on average it takes 30 minutes to restore calm that team's readiness after forgoing

critical trading. that is why it is so important to a predictable and consistent funding if the army would have operated at though sequestered levels of 2014 it would have had a cumulative impact on the army's ability to fully support the commanders operations called for in the security strategy. 2015 is the second and final year of a bipartisan budget act. but the army is still $5 billion less than what was founded last year. weld this is still above the levels it forces the rv to pursue a tiered readiness strategy in the near-term for modernization and investments for the future. three is the army infrastructure and equipment will suffer at this funding level. the are the 2016 budget request represents the of

federal level commensurate with the army spent in 2014 to transition from readiness construct which is required for today's world it would bring the operations back to a level of funding it had in 2014 while sustaining the drawdown of forces. tiered readiness will continue allowing nine of the combat teams to be fully ready as part of the contingency force. additionally modernization accounts will be detrimental by 10 percent ever taken in the structure funded to support only critical safety repairs and in essence the nation's army will move from the our readiness it had

from the bipartisan legislation. we are seeking a to achieve the following objectives. you heard the previously used the words prevent and shape and win. this budget has the combat and command the support which trained and ready land forces capable to conduct to prevent shaping operations but decisive operations for a complex and strategic environment. this requires a carefully major balance between readiness and modernization. one that is reflected that we can see on the next slide. at $126.5 billion and is consistent with the department spent to maintain the army in 2014. this five represents funding

requirements for all three components and the national guard and the reserved and as a breakout with the defense appropriations we talk about each on subsequent slides. while the request is 45 percent of the topline and 60% is used to pay for the civilian workforce making the total personal cost at 61 percent of the total budget. as the biggest cost driver we have a lot of time of personnel and talent management reducing the size of the civilian workforce commensurate with the drawdown of the military force. as you can see the procurement represents only 18 percent of the entire budget. proportionately this is an all-time low since the beginning of the century between 20 and 22 percent of our total obligations.

blast you can see the main growth from fiscal year 15 through 16 is in the research and development acquisition accounts. military personnel accounts for the largest portion of the army budget. to fund able to component are we is just over 1 million soldiers. this account covers they come in tenements, recruiting and in retention incentives, permitted changes in trading primarily of the reserve components. given the of issue a for 63 the first to the army does not use its funding to pay for the above 490,000 in the active component it may strike you as unusual that we are requesting this save an amount of funding in fy16 as 15 al though we have

23,000 fewer soldiers it is contributed to cost of living and compensation and housing adjustment. the following slides has a pitcher of military strength levels and how they continue to trend downward even the requirements are on the rise. these levels are lined with a structure changes in the army reorganizes the combat team formations. just a few short years ago the army had 45 active components for the brigade combat teams with 540,000 show -- soldiers. it will have 32 by the end of this year and conducting a thorough study of further reductions of 2016 and beyond as the army has budgeted for the active component of only 475,000

soldiers purpose of of the the national guard by 8,000 soldiers from 2016 at two under 42,000 and also further brigade combat the reductions from current level of 28. i will discuss the army's operations and maintenance starting with the active proponent. oma budget seeks to have a more balanced readiness across the force instead of the tiered readiness model that only has approximately one-third of the 32 of 2015 ready for contingency force operations. 19 combat trading center locations it is the centerpiece for the army for training. of those 17 of the active component tour of the

national guard here provides funding for regional engagement activities with allies and strategic partners with a 21% increase from 2015 for professional military education to help reduce the current backlog and it also represents 7% increase for funding for civilian education. the critical funding helps to lay the foundation for the future operating cost. this will cover these a statement to increase the level to help breaking the equipment to a greater a bubble of repair to ensure the expeditionary force. leslie the oma requests supports facilities 74 active component installations. the base of operations

support is funded at 95% of its requirement. the facilities are funded at 79% of its requirement and necessary growth in recent years have funded the state restoration and modernization of facilities to as low as 62% adding to the amount of backlog meanness that already exists. this also maintains the same level of investment staying true to that commitment of soldiers and families. the 2016 budget request for the requirement of the national requirement for the national guard oma request is lower than in 2014 and is a stevens readiness to fund critical facilities in base operation requirements.

with 342,000 national guard for the reserve with a 72 brigades with three installations over 300 reserve centers of specialized trading on the reserve force of 198,000 soldiers. this is less than the actual expenditures and also with military technicians to increase ready this to the new level. at this time i'll handle everything over who will spend a few minutes of the research and development and acquisition portion of the 2016 request. >> good afternoon. we will try this from a discussion of near-term maintenance the into the

army modernization and. the acquisition budget shows that 23 billion over the a fly 15 levels it is a sizable increase with respect to the budget request. historically it is 22% fyi 13 sequestration through the request is about $4 billion each year below that amount. is made resources informed decisions with high dollar programs the armed ariel scout and tactical networking to name a few these reductions allowed us of about $4 billion from of modernization funding. the invoice 60 budget request no program

termination to maintain science and technology through 2025 and has higher level of modernization of sittings the risk associated with the restructure initiative to fund improvements to current common -- ground combat vehicles. this shows the actual funding and the and acted amount there were the army takes mid term risk under the topline to be sure that we cannot sustain historically though investment funding without increasing the risk. so what you take away from

this as a full spectrum operational force requires modernization efforts. the focus remains that with aviation to provide the ability protection and firepower to mission command to enable the situation in the weird is to the portfolio with the individual kit. so the fy16 is a 2. $2 billion increase to continue investments with the aviation n initiative while abiding by the fy15 national authorization act on the future structure of the army in restructure's to have the cost automatic aircraft all legacies for the aircraft.

it includes reconnaissance to the echo model apache with great eagle or shadow unmanned vehicles also are raving at the trading days of the legacy th67 helicopter. and this will complete that transition day filled their cargo to lift it for structure requirements. there are significant savings for the army associated with this initiative that the procurement budget is prioritized to maximize the multi-year purchase agreement as well as reflecting increased demand on the upper model apache the model that supports modernization shows the army is committed to developing and fielding the tactical the work it is a combat multiplier with network

modernization and compass -- encompasses many efforts with seven and did $83 million for satellite communication $166.40 billi on for generators, $145 million for a control system, 130 3.$3 million joint command platform a 92 million for radios. this request supports a revised civil acquisition strategy for hand-held multiple fits radios. but it will provide incremental agreements and we are requesting 360 5. $9 million for a proposal that includes production and hardware procurement in fy16

for support of the version three production of fiscal year 17. to the bradley modification program we are requesting $225 million for its proposal which encompasses suspension improvements. with safety of raids with the conversion of ms three 3-d m2 models. and requested for striker and it completes the third brigade combat set. to be applied to the engineer proposal which includes electrical upbraids having power and cooling efficiencies with that

fourth brigade set. the integrated management finds the we requesting of 270 3.$9 million to begin is the initial production of 30 systems. with that initial production but a program with the army and the marine corps it is paramount to the modernization and strategy and it is our intent to procure over 49,000 to end around 2041. >>. >> it is a modest increase of the inactive now. the portfolio sign

technology efforts comprise its basic research and applied research and advanced technology. with 2.$2 billion with of validation and operational system development spread across the portfolio across the pie graph. so of that request it is for the prototype being the s&p portion for future combat vehicles to focus refine and concepts in the areas of survivability and architecture. to have future combat vehicle requirements to reduce technology integration risk. we're requesting investment

of $55 million to a naval operation conditions that impede or deny access to the global positioning system. we are requesting 60 2.3 billion dollars for the joint multi vertical lift aircraft program to demonstrate the feasibility of the affordable bdm lift aircraft that speeds one and a half times greater covering distance twice as great as existing platforms. october of 2014 to be selected to complete the design and fabricate the aircraft and demonstrations will occur between fiscal years 17 through fiscal year 19. we are seeking $43 million for high-energy laser programs to demonstrate the focus on rockets or artillery and unmanned

aircraft or cruise missiles. 24.$5 million is requested for aviation and degraded it finances and a three separate technology vances with flight control. the long-term goal is to provide technology 350-degree of awareness to allow pilots to operate information of all regimes and all degraded environments. the capstone flight demonstration for the degraded mitigation program is scheduled in 2020. requesting $40.9 million for long-range precision fired with the science and technology efforts will extend this at 300 meters with a single warhead for the targets. with long raged and 3c to develop technology for the light weight done to match the adversarial range of

50 kilometers in the near term to develop the next generation and artillery with capability of 75 kilometers. a lot like to highlight a few non science and technology programs rb -- army cyberinvestment includes 31% increase of procurement funds or $96.3 million. 92% increase of funds of $84.000000 but in the areas of big data and contenders look monitoring with the operations $238 million is requested to continue the armored multi-purpose vehicle department engineering manufacturing contract was awarded

december senator tillis to support detail design components and subsystems concluded with the critical design third quarter 2016. 200 14.$1 billion for the air and missile defense program to provide for engineering manufacturing development testing to include testing and a limited user test in the program is on track to deliver a in operating capability in fiscal year 2018. we requesting $26 million for combat improvement and they are presuming proposals for strikers and bradleys to be able to increase protection and unable the improvements to except the future network. the final slide into researched development portion of the briefing is

of the largest programs and the quantities to be delivered should support our request. with respect to the procurement of congressional support with viavoice 16 requests 43% of the acquisition objective should be met. this concludes my portion. >> i will continue with facilities as the army seeks to choose between readiness and modernization it is challenged with its requirements aloes of recent years. as you can see in of fy15 and fy16 is the smallest budgets is the year 2000 the share the request funding 32 construction progress paul dash projects over millions of dollars. with $500 million there is a small growth of new

construction with family housing in the continental united states and korea in army family housing operations worldwide. as it continues do decrease as pervious be provided with only a small portion of of new money needed for environmental cleanup restoration how with the budget request there several requirements that are managed set up separately behind the appropriations this includes 70-point a million dollars for the arlington national cemetery to support contracts and fun salaries in 29 modernization contracts is also requesting $720 million for chemical agents and munitions and destruction. this supports the continued closure of incineration facility sites in utah and alabama in oregon and the

completion of the construction of two chemical facilities in pueblo colorado and bluegrass kentucky. so enabling the department of defense to complete the reduction of the stockpile. also with the working capital fund to acquire the stocks. next slide. the army has been managing a large overseas contingency operation budget since 2001. this is an account that has ebbed and flowed as they have expanded and contracted over time. the 2016 budget request is the smallest in over a decade it still represents requirements of military personnel and research development and acquisition. the multi comply request

totals $20.7 billion and includes funding for the past through accounts. the 2016 request supports the horn of africa and the philippines and operation inherit result primarily in iraq the insurance initiative in in europe in the trading equipments in syria. it also includes approximately 4.5 billion dollars for the joint i.e. e finder and afghanistan security force find. as stated earlier 2016 is the first year where the military personnel account is not used to pay for active components above 490,000 soldiers. the 2016 request of $2 billion is for entitlements only to pay allowances and administrative supports for mobilizing soldiers

representing 65% of the request with center operations with transportation force protection support contracts for a mobilization in deployment training and reset of frequent mitt returning from theater and a smaller portion of the request is from data loss and the ammunition and in all areas of the request the reductions are sizable and represent the large drawdown of soldiers in afghanistan which should not be interpreted to mean he is mitt is of an equal reduction to involve army soldiers on the ground continues to increase the being the future in the balance. as we prepare this we have several initiatives to live with the end of fiscal realities of the topline

that include compensation reform and health care reform and the aviation restructuring initiative all designed to enable the army to remain trade andretti, a capable decisive action and able to take care of there -- our soldiers and families if they are not supported the and we will be further challenge to spread the top-flight account that have already been reduced in previous years for the army has also been working hard to become more effective to support the combat commanders we have reduced pressure and military strength as well as a number of contractors and civilian personnel. modernization efforts have been cleaned in facility maintenance and operations have been reduced. i conclude today by having several challenges that face our army that need to be a backdrop for current and future budgetary discussions

the amount and velocity is on the rise. in the past year we have seen a number of the merchant operations that require soldiers to deploy in operate for extended periods of time for period some not even anticipated one year earlier. to continue to support these operations america's army must be trained and ready the world security environment is changing so fast as many predictable and consistent funding represented in this request. once readiness is lost requires years to get back and as i stated earlier 30 months is the cumulative effect of trading over time that make a unit ready now one major training exercise for a year after year one of the key components is a balance between in strength

and readiness and modernization. we need enough soldiers trained and ready for decisive action yclept with the best equipment to have the unmatched advantage against potential adversaries reduced funding or delays of modernization with the technological match of risk marginalizing one component of readiness to benefit the other may have a near term solution their risk in the future purpose of u.s. army needs to retain strength and readiness and cutting end equipment to provide for national security. ladies and gentleman that includes a formal portion of our presentation at this time we will be happy to take any questions you may have. >> i want to ask why has there been a boost of procurement with the restructure calling for what you have now?

with fy15 the only one did 40 but that is up -- but fy16 is up. >> deviation restructuring initiative we're taking risks and part of that was not knowing what the armed ariel scouts so we need the apache model he to do dna and teaming effort. so we are taking field third deave model to reconfigure into the al model -- echo model. >> didn't they come from the guard? >> we had a long-term plan to modernize but it is essential to the unmanned teaming it is part to move the apache from the guard into the active component should be commission support >> you are accelerating the

conversion is what is happening? >> i would have to go back to see if we are accelerating. research the are converting more but i don't recall that was part of the original plan or not. >> what does the army game to extend the drawdown through 2018 at 450,000? that was supposed to be last year now it is slow down. what does the army gained by that one year? >> in general terms near-term flexibility for a greater number of soldiers for these divergent operations we're still committed to get down to 15 but we are leveling of the slope of the drawdown to be sure we have the right

amount of soldiers were in a contingency effort that would arise. that is a lot of soldiers to paul lot of drinks and when your time. >> but there is a lot of interested in the lightweight vehicles to you have the quantity build up for that? >> i don't have that with me we brought over over a hundred 50 last year so this is the first full year. the full of rage production does not kick in until 2018 that is the are bp said believe the marine portion is 520-0500. >> can you give me the five-year spending projections? >> general comments to things that congress is very

interested in is aviation restructuring and there is a commissioned out and they have added funds to sustain the industrial base. but to what degree does the budget address to keep enough work in those factories to keep them going and to what degree if congress decides to deny a the apaches does that cost the rest of the modernization? >> i will address the second one first. i don't want to anticipate the findings of the commission's 11 rather not address what that would or would not do with how the army has planned the initiative. with respect to the other

congress put ads n394915. there is a sizable amount to keep the work force at present in with the budget we have right now what is going on in 15 and the additional strike for awhile -- striker conversions are accomplished there is work at a minimal rate but in 2017 as we start the engineering change proposals that will also ocher as well as continuing.

>> with the new short town -- short-term readiness could you elaborate a bit with the army should be doing to service the accounts that it cannot right now because of the loss? >> the army is trying to balance that mid term risk to maintain a fairly robust science and technology program as other accounts are being reduced. with the top line that is the best we can do the current funding level. >> you have any gaps you are concerned about? >> a think we are trying to mitigate the risks as best

we can by doing the incremental improvements for the existing fleets. these have been in the inventory is a longtime. some since the 1980. so we are improving those systems to extend their life with either the top line increase to start a more robust procure a program or to go back for the future infantry combat vehicle which is what the army would like to continue doing more at a historical or a higher level lot historical. >> please note that there is of budget roundtable tomorrow. thank you for coming we will have representatives there as well that our available

to answer additional questions. [inaudible conversations]

there right now let's get the overall military budget that began the series of briefings. >> doing a change of the guards. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] segundo afternoon. where for the public affairs officer deal assistant secretary we will be briefing fiscal year 2016 budget please hold remarks until the conclusion of the

brave at that time the admiral will address any of your questions. thank you. >> good afternoon. thanks for joining us today. i will present an overview of the department's overview budget request that reflects the secretariat of the navy the implementation of the strategic guidance shown on the slide. with national defense strategies through the guidance of 2012 and this is the guidance that outlines the mission that they are expected to execute as shown do directed missions from providing a deterrent and fighting terrorism to protect their homeland to the stabilizing presence across the globe to protect power when called upon.

so today we will talk about the investment to execute these missions in the strategic guidance is the foundation that we will chat about. this slide shows of that strategy is executed today that is the result of the resources provided and hard choices made to create the navy and marine corps. around the world the forward posture with a combatant commanders requirement we have 35,000 sailors and marines deployed on 99 ships including amphibious readiness groups with expeditionary units with an additional 30,000 sailors including those in east asia and pacific. consistent with the qvc are

we collecting the strategic focus and the region's so these are provided by the media response options from president bush when they shifted offshore operations in afghanistan to launch hornets into iraq and syria for the strikers view sovereign place to provide the only coalition offered to protect for the first 54 days of that operation. now in the black sea within one week evasion of crimea to give the president in uss fort worth was the first to support a system for the missing air asia of flight. and providing the crisis of sudan and iraq and libya. there are many other examples as well with engagements of exercises over the year when it

featured as participants in and around the arabian gulf as participants from 44 nations. the navy remains deeply engaged to be aware of matters when it matters. the execution of that mandate of a sustained war time tempo controlled with funding collectively provided has stressed the force to progress choosier early '90s to a third of the force today that continues to be oversubscribed to the combat commanders to talk about the strategy we just talked about. these operational summary charts show the contingent consumption of readiness and

concurrently the chart in grade you can see the trend that had increased overtime by one-third as well as the deployment the every and core is stressed against a sustained gore loved one or three and this combination reduced resources that has resulted in the force that cannot provide contingency forces led by today and it is challenged with the backlogs and delayed modernization and this budget makes key investments to improve these trends to reduce operational tempo pressure and going into infrastructure to man the target -- a target to its readiness. this is the funding that will be source tomorrows

marine corps. going back to the peak funding five years ago in a flight attendant for five years from now on the resources are reduced by one defense. fact is that the sequestered the california levels it would decline by one quarter. it is within the context of this fiscal environment and still a dangerous security environment how the parties were applied capable of executing 56 of the missions. bringing sad display into the venue as shown here the magnification of the a 514 shows the request level in blooper of course, that was the budget submitted with of qvr this year's request is

below that with the budget control act is below that as well. it is $25 billion less that two 1/2 billion dollars last that represents an increased risk to execute the niches barely to project power despite challenges of denial and major contingencies to deter aggression. if that the sequestered levels that would be an additional of $44 billion the department would be unable to execute to to the substantial a readiness commit capacity or capability. we will spend some time to go into each appropriation and in sufficient detail to answer questions but first of one to show the overall balance on this chart.

starting with the military personnel count it is with the department of navy and includes funding for the uss george washington in for preserving and power -- manpower the operations and maintenance account the views to operate the force that 31 percent meticals higher than the enacted level to strengthen the of the nuclear deterrent enterprise in ephesus on stress readiness with those marinas backlog side just highlighted. 20% of the request reflects sustained focus on and stability to increase strike fire of the navy and marine

corps. research and development in purple is an assist to develop key capabilities for the future including the ohio replacement programming and finally new infrastructure investment reflect the continued context that services face. next slide. with the military personnel accounts that are required by the strategy followed by production in the ring gore comes down from a peak to a sustained level of 182,000 the navy has brought down over time and will end up at 330,000 that is highlighted in the growth of the 15 level to restorer of the budget and also increase

historic execution levels. as the battle force grows by 2020. collectively they produce stability for the structure is entirely in the base budget in the first time since 2012 with 184,000 marines for the drill ratio to set the pace of the a drawdown to impact the leadership. it continues increased co pay and incentive pay for critical skills and additional compensation on extended deployments and to fund of 1.3% pay raise as discussed today the budget across the department of defense proposes proposes for the military health

system in reduces commissary agents over two years. in the areas of civilian personnel that is required for the profiles to execute a new initiative to improve nuclear weapons facility on site per over all the profile declines by 2500 consistent with flashers request and areas of targeted growth rose by a 2,000 over 16 and 17 to address renin's backlogs to plead readiness to address backlogs and 224 is

increased and recommended by the enterprise review key relatively these reflect the contributions of civilian personnel across the force to sustain that high a tempo over the past decade while keeping the mission going for word. next slide. of the department's readiness accounts will be focused to meet the operational tempo to properly sustained ships in aircraft to properly train our people going for word. if the metrics are funded to the historical levels year the budget to fund will shift of 45 days when deployed in 20 days when not to play. in 24 days respectively with oco and also being readied

for the navy or the record with the exception of both services you are under constrained by the highlighted area earlier. maintenance is funded at 80% in the base budget and is also funded at the capacity. this as critical chain initiatives such as increased hiring of civilian engineers and mentioned earlier. with readiness funding to be an historical levels 91% of the totals is sustainment funding respectively for the navy and marine corps and also from the budget and whether it remains pressurized 67 3%

respectively. finally the request to meet the statutory requirement of investment. the secretary of the navy is to achieve stability to affordably field the strategy has 48 ships the same number as last year's program the highlights are continued funding of two submarines and the second is the first flight three version to provide capability to simultaneously conduct anti-air ballista look missile defense operations this budget fully funded in fy16 that congress provided funds for in the

first replacement they have the complex overhaul with the projected start date and the uss enterprise with full funding starts the ohio replacement program starts at 5173 are funded per year and to the three units are from 2019 and 2020 respectively. with the features of these new versions of $185 million is also programmed through 2020. the replacement orders with of additional procurement of total procurement for this is to be 17. changes include refacing to

push a ship between 20 and 21 in the viability to extend ocean service logs i will highlight five ship to shore craft these are the high speed connectors that give capability to the amphibious ships to the beach over all 14 ships are delivered three are retired prima about aforesaid 282 finally a the budget operations a statement for the levin cruisers for long-term modernization supports congressional direction and also has one phase one in that direction. with aircraft procurement the overall increase of 36 aircraft largely reflects

the restoral of those with george washington and other increases include two additional each of those central to use the qvr initiative fiscal constraints kids today to the higher risk so that with that there's squadron is that replacement ended f-117 this completed 15 with the operational capability.

>> we will leave the briefing of the pentagon at this point going live to the u.s. senate floor it is considering legislation to reduce suicide in the military and we are expecting a vote on that bill tomorrow noon eastern percolator they are expected to take a bill to repeal the affordable care act. now live to the senate floor on c-span2.

today, give our lawmakers singularity of heart to seek, find, and follow your will, so that their legacy will be exemplary. guide them in the path you have created inspiring them with the potency of your powerful presence. may they trust you in times of adversity and prosperity knowing that they will reap a productive harvest if they persevere. we pray in your merciful name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance

to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the previous order with respect to h.r. 203 be modified so that the senate proceed to the consideration of h.r. 203 at 11:00 a.m. on tuesday, february 2 2005 with all other provisions of the order being in effect. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: for the information of my colleagues this moves the vote on the clay hunt suicide prevention until noon tomorrow because of unfor seen weather events that have created travel problems for senators on both sides of the aisle. i move to proceed to h.r. 240. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to proceed. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 5 h.r. 240, an act making appropriations for the department of homeland security for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2015, and

for other purposes. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate now be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: let me say first i want to welcome back our colleague, the majority leader he's had a challenging month, and we're happy to see him back here in the senate and wish him well in his recovery, which looks as if it's coming along nicely, and welcome back i say on behalf of all of our colleagues to the democratic leader. in his state of the union address president obama promised to deliver a budget filled with -- quote -- "ideas that are practical and not partisan." i know many americans were glad to hear him say that. the american people elected a right of center congress focused on jobs and reform so it makes sense that the president would want to send commonsense ideas

that could pass the congress that the actually actually elected last november. he could have proposed a budget that was balanced, key have challenged us with serious,if snowflake reforms aimed at getting spending under control or effective ideas to create jobs and opportunity. there's so many positive things he could have done instead of phoning in another tired tax-and-spend manifesto. we basically see the same thing every year. it focuses on growing the bureaucracy instead of opportunity. it doesn't balance ever, and bates isn't designed to pass congress of course it doesn't pass congress. but the budget is just one symptom of a wider disconnect. rhetorically at least we hear the white house echo calls at spools aimed at helping the

middle class but see more of the same stale top-down policies favored by political bosses on the left. as americans who have lost health plans or seen costs skyrocket could tell you the left's priorities only hurt the very people they purport the help. this is the wrong preach. we need fresh ideas. republicans want the president company join us in fighting for the middle class so we think he should take opportunities like the budget to rally members of both parties behind serious ideas that could actually pass. we think the country could benefit from his positive leadership. his next test will come soon as the new congress works to develop the kind of budget the american people deserve. we're going to focus on growing the economy from the ground up with more future oriented reform more jobs, more opportunity, we're going to pursue ideas to make government leaner more efficient and more effective and honor the hardworking men and women who

count on us to spend their dollars wisely, not off load washington's problems on to them with higher taxes. that's what the american people expect, it's the kind of practical agenda you pursue if you're serious about helping the middle class. and it's what i hope the president will encourage members of both parties to work toward. the truth is there's a lot we can achieve with constructive, bipartisan cooperation. the bill we'll vote on tomorrow is a great example of that. members in both parties agree it's time to pursue positive reform for veterans who are hurting. the clay hunt suicide prevention for american veterans act aims to reduce the tragedy that befalls too many of our heroes and the heartbreak that befalls too many of their families. we lose thousands of veterans every year to suicide. now is the time for practical bipartisan action to do something about it.

the legislation we'll vote on tomorrow would provide more of the suicide essential and mental health support our veterans deserve, it would help veterans transition from active duty service and it would take steps to improve the effectiveness of programs to help heroes in need. this bill has already passed the house unanimously. i hope we can achieve a similar result in the senate and send this bipartisan legislation to the white house for signature. i want to thank the senator from the senior senator from georgia, senator isakson and the senior senator from arizona, senator mccain for their work on this bill. these senators care deeply about the men and women who give literally everything to protect us veterans are lucky to have such strong champions on their side. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: it's really good to be back. i appreciate the kind remarks of

the republican leader. senator mcconnell and his lovely wife elaine have been wonderful to landra and i over the years and i appreciate their words of support. i want to express my appreciation appreciation to my colleagues who have been so kind and thoughtful during my recovery time. the presiding officer i received your phone call, that was very warm and i very much appreciate it. as the united states senators, our work is measured by what we're able to accomplish for the middle class or able to accomplish for the american people. now, i've watched very closely and been in touch as we all knew and read the stories with what has gone on here the last month. i'm sorry to say that we spent one month on a bill calling for the importation of oil from a foreign country and then importing that oil outside of america.

i'm glad that we were able to work it out so we had a number of amendments and that was really good and felt very comfortable with that. i wish we could have done some more but i'm satisfied with what we were able to do and, of course, now we await the action of the president as we should be doing. work of this senate is based upon -- should be based upon what we're able to do for the middle class. we are a constructive minority and we proved that the last month. and to show how constructive we are, take, for example, tria, terrorism insurance. it's so important up and down the las vegas strip times square, every plait place in america that was important to business community but yet this thing was held up the last congress by my republican colleagues to show our good faith we were able to pass that

in a matter of hours and that's the way it should be. we have, we're going to vote now tomorrow on the clay hunt bill. that's an important piece of legislation. i've worked hard on suicide prevention and we need to keep working on that. each year in america 32,000 americans kill themselves. that doesn't take into consideration the car accidents that are not reported properly, hunting accidents and we have about 24 veterans who kill themselves every day in america. but yet again we believe that's important for america and because of that, we're going to pass that in a matter of hours tomorrow. that's the way it should be. now, there's an issue that is now before this body and it's an important issue. all we need to look at is what's going on around the world. terrorism attack in australia. terrorism attack in canada.

france scores of people killed. belgium, we saw what happened there. terrorism is for real. senator can mccaskill said it the best way i've seen it described, the republicans are more afraid of the dreamers than they are of isis. by the way isis said they're coming our way. why should we be dealing with issues that have nothing to do with homeland security, nothing to do with homeland security? we should pass a homeland security bill with no strings attached to it. that's where we're going to wind up. if the republican majority in the house and the senate want to have a c.r. for homeland security a continuing resolution, that would cut about a billion dollars, a billion dollars out of that budget for homeland security. homeland security was developed after 9/11. it was a bipartisan piece of

legislation that consolidated 22 different government agencies. we need to get that done and sent to the president in a clean fashion. if my republican colleagues have some progress with something the president has done on immigration, for example, hit it head on. don't hide hint homeland security. we need a safe homeland and i hope my republican colleagues will join us and get that done as quickly as possible. the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: what is the order of business on the floor of the senate this moment?

the presiding officer: as in morning business. mr. durbin: thank you. i ask consent to speak in morning business and welcome back my colleague and friends the majority leader -- minority leader of the united states senate senator harry reid. he is -- i'm told he was coming back and i found a way to avoid a blizzard in chicago to be here with you harry because i wanted to be here for this moment. it's a great moment for those of us on the democratic side of the aisle to have harry back and i know it means to lot to him. he's gone through a lot in terms of his injury and also his impatience at home when for a period of time he couldn't read a book, which he loves to do, watch television or do much of anything and i know he was anxious to get back in the saddle and back here and we are so glad that he's returned. and his message at the outset shows that there's no -- he may be scarred and beaten up but there's no din eunice -- dim

mission of the fighting spirit harry reid pass brought to the senate floor reminding us we are going to embark object a question about the funding of the department of homeland security of all things, the department of homeland security created to protect america from terrorism is a department that is underfunded by republican design. the republicans refuse to give the regular budget appropriation to the department of homeland security to protest president obama's executive order on immigration. the house of representatives went so far as to add five riders conditions, to the budget for the department of homeland security and send them here. they have said that they will not fund this department unless we join them in what has become an extremely negative and i believe hate-filled attack on people across america.

saturday we had a rally in chicago, and at that rally was secretary jeh johnson of the department of homeland security. joining us were congressman lewis gutierrez of chicago myself and the mayor of chicago and literally hundreds of people many of them dreamers, young people who were now because of president obama's executive order allowed to go to school and work in america. remember these were children, toddlers infants brought to america by their families who were undocumented through no fault of their own. they've lived in america. they have been educated in america. they pledged allegiance to our flag in their classrooms and they have no future because we have not changed the immigration law to give them a chance. but president obama has given them a chance. daca is a program that when these young people sign up for it, they can be protected to live in america without fear of

deportation, to work here, to go to school here and to start to realize their dreams. they even want to volunteer for our military. many of them do. they're trying their best to be part of america's future, and the president gave them that chance. the house of representatives republican majority, said we will not fund the department of homeland security to protect america against terrorism unless the senate will vote to literally deport the dreamers. at a time, as senator reid said, when we are threatened with isis when we are sickened by the images on television of innocent people, including americans, being beheaded, at that same time the republicans on capitol hill are telling us we are not going to properly fund the department of homeland security to protect america unless we can protest what president obama's done for 600,000 young people protected by daca. snowed quoted senator

christmas -- senator reid quoted senator mass cass kill and said the republicans fear the dreamers more than they fear the terrorists, more than they fear isis. that's wrong. i don't know who cooked up this political strategy. they were not thinking clearly. if they were thinking clearly we would fund that department with a clean appropriation one that is now sitting on a calendar of the united states senate that was offered by senators jeanne shaheen and barbara mikulski. it's sitting here. by unanimous consent with the approval of the majority leader, we could pass it today fund this agency. i asked secretary johnson well, what difference does it make if you get a temporary funding bill or a regular budget bill? he said i can't properly run this department. i am wasting time and money. i'm not investing in things that make us safer because of the way congress, in this case the house republicans, insist that they will not properly fund this agency. they funded every other agency in government except for the department of homeland security. what are they thinking?

why would they want to make an object lesson out of this critical department? i said to secretary johnson so what types of things can't you do? he said one example he said we give grants for research to find ways to make america safer when we're attacked. we can't give those grants now because we're under a continuing resolution. research has stopped to make america safe. is that a wise thing for the new republican majority in the house and senate to do? clearly that's their plan. but we're giving to give them an alternative and very quickly. we're going to tomorrow consider a procedural motion about whether or not we go to this house bill which is, has the five riders on immigration. i believe that the democrats will say no, we want a clean bill and we want to move to that bill quickly. and we need to do it not just because we need to keep america safe. isn't that our first obligation? but secondly, because i don't

believe our caucus, and i hope not a majority of the other caucus has the same hate-filled feelings towards dreamers that we've seen in the house of representatives. 600,000 of them stepped forward. i've come to the floor day after day to tell their stories. they are just the most amazing stories of young people who with no help from the government finished college and pursued professional degrees without a penny of assistance from our government whose only dream is to be part of the future of america. they are our future. they will help our economy. they will reduce our deficit. they will once again reestablish and reaffirm the american dream that people can risk everything to come to this country to make sure that children have a better life. these dreamers deserve that chance. america deserves the chance to be properly secure in this age of terrorism. this republican strategy is not going to achieve that. so i thank my colleague --

mr. reid: would my friend yield for a question? mr. durbin: i'd be happy to yield for a question. mr. reid: my friend is modest, my friend the senior senator from illinois. but tell those within the sound of our voices how long you have worked on the dream act. you. mr. durbin: i thank the senator from nevada, our minority leader. 14 years ago i introduced the dream act and i got into a spat with a republican senator senator hatch who said that's my idea. and i said fine, then it will be the hatch-durbin dream act and we introduced it 14 years ago. it has not been enacted into law and senator hatch now has some misgivings over this issue. but i've stuck with it for 14 years, and you joined me in sending a letter to president obama asking that he create this executive order of protection. i'd like to say a word about executive orders. republicans come to the floor here and suggest that when a president of the united states issues an executive order, it is an unconstitutional exercise of power. you hear it over and over again.

if you step out of this chamber and take just a few steps toward a staircase, you will see this magnificent historic painting of abraham lincoln signing the emancipation proclamation. it is historic because with the signature of president lincoln three million american slaves were freed. an executive order. and it was an order which had the force of law. it was signed by president lincoln. an executive order. it wasn't the only one. we think back in history to the historic executive orders and you have to think of harry truman. harry truman after world war ii stepped up and said we are going to integrate the armed forces of the united states of america and i won't wait for congress. give me the pen and paper to sign the executive order to achieve it. so if president lincoln can liberate three million american slaves if president truman can sign an executive order

integrating the armed forces, how can the republicans come to the floor one after the other and say the use of an executive order by the president is unconstitutional and want to hold president obama accountable for their misguided thinking? it doesn't make sense. and i might just say and i thought perhaps the senator from nevada was going to say it as well if they don't like -- if none of the republicans like what president obama has done on immigration, can i remind them they're now in the majority control of the house and senate? if they think it's better to have a law enacted despite the fact that for two years the house of representatives refused to even call the bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform if they think it's proper and right for a law to be enacted on immigration the american people have given them the majorities in both houses to do it. so instead of cursing the darkness and failing to fund the department of homeland security, why don't they roll up their sleeves and go to work as

members of the house and senate and pass immigration reform. i think that is worthy of this great body and the one across the rotunda. but to underfund the department of homeland security that protects us from terrorism, what are they thinking? i thank the senator from nevada for returning. it feels great to have you back in your capacity here as our leader here on the democratic side and as my friend. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: i'd like to add we're glad to have senator reid back. i know he had a difficult time in the past few weeks and we're glad you're back and on your feet. mr. president, i'd like to introduce the clay hunt prevention bill. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: mr. president i want to give you a stark fact and figure. every year 8,000 american veterans take their own life and commit suicide. that's more people, more

veterans than were killed in all the conflicts in iraq and afghanistan. we have a major epidemic in america's armed forces because of soft tissue issues of ptsd and t.b.i. this congress and both committees of veterans affairs in the house and senate act and tomorrow will vote on the clay hunt suicide prevention bill and i want to talk about it because it is critically important. when these men and women go overseas and volunteer to serve america and lay their lives on the line with us, many come back with terrible injuries. prosthesis an inability to walk some in wheelchairs. but the stealth disease the one that hurts the most, the one that permeates the most is ptsd and t.b.i. we have been doing as much as we could but not enough with veterans health care. secretary mcdonald dedicated himself to improving the service of health care to veterans. i have committed myself. senator blumenthal, senator boozman from arkansas, senator

mccain who will speak later. what the clay hunt suicide prevention bill does is it creates incentives for more psychiatric professionals to come into the v.a. health care system because psychiatry is the best physician expertise you need to deal with ptsd and t.b.i. it has external audits of the v.a. to make sure they're doing what needs to take place in terms of veterans' health care, in terms of mental health for our veterans. the tragedies are daily. the tragedies are compounding and we must find an end to it. mr. president, a lot of people thinks these tragedies are veterans of the gulf war operation iraqi freedom or our battle in afghanistan but a lot of them are vietnam veterans. we didn't recognized ptsd and t.b.i. for a long time but now we recognize front and center it is the major injury from the battles in afghanistan and iraq and other conflicts in the history of the united states of america and we owe it to our veterans to have the best melgt

melgt mental health available to them. i called a field hearing and brought in is experts on suicide prevention because we had had three suicides in the atlanta v.a. within a short period of time that got high profile news papers. we didn't have the follow-up follow-through and continuum of care. and we had veterans that had fallen through the cracks not just in atlanta but around the united states of america. in fact, as recently as last week there was a tragic death in atlanta. we don't know yet the cause. we don't know yet the root cause of it but we node the individual may have had mental health problems and was a veteran of the war in afghanistan and took their life and the life of their crirn. we don't know whether ptsd was the contributing cause but four more lives were taken because of it. i am pleased as a chairman of

the veterans' committee to tell you that the house unanimously passed this bill three weeks ago on the floor of the house. the senate veterans' committee unanimously passed it two weeks ago in committee. the bill we will vote on tomorrow can go directly from the floor of the senate directly to the desk of the president of the united states and be signed. i want to make two points for anybody who remembers this bill from last year. this bill failed last year. one, members questioned we could afford it because it had a price tag of $24 million. we fixed the price problem by taking internally generated funds. that's done. secondly some say this is a duplicative service. we already have mental health services and suicide prevention in the v.a. we have some and we don't have enough. and it's not duplicative. it's absolutely necessary and essential that we do what we're doing. so mr. president, i'm proud to come to the floor of the united states senate on behalf of our veterans and tell them washington is watching. we are listening. we feel your pain and we understand the problems that you have and we're going to do everything we can to see to it that the clay hunt suicide

prevention bill becomes the law of the land, the v.a. is held accountable for its policies and procedures in mental health and we put an end to and stem the tide to the tragic number of vet suicides at that take place every single day. i would now like to yield to my ranking member on the veterans affairs committees, the senator from connecticut who has done an overwhelmingly great job to sue see this through from beginning to end senator blumenthal. mr. blumenthal: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: i begin by thanking the chairman of the veterans' affairs committee senator isakson and really giving him immeasurable credit for his courage and his fortitude in addressing this bill that he could have allowed to languish on the agenda of the veterans' affairs committee. in fact, he made it the very first agenda item. the very first issue that wee would confront -- that we would confront on the veterans'

affairs committee at our very first meeting. and it passed unanimously through the veterans' affairs committee because of his leadership and i really mean his leadership, in making it happen. so on behalf of the veterans of america, he deserves due credit, and so do my colleagues on the veterans' affairs committee senator boozman senator sanders who championed this bill along with senator burr during the last session i was pleased to argue for it on the floor here in the closing days of the session, and unfortunately it failed to pass. there is no reason to look back and try to blame others for that failure. what's important is a look forward -- is to look forward and give credit to both sides of the aisle most especially to my colleague, senator mccain. and of course he dwarfs us in

his service in the armed forces to our nation. he literally is a giant in his service and sacrifice for our nation while serving in the navy but i have felt very privileged and proud to work with him and introduce this measure the clay hunt suicide prevention for americans act or the save act as it's called, that basically provides for suicide prevention services, but even more importantly pioneers and champions mental health care for our v.a. i thank all of our colleagues who have worked on this bill over the past year or so because this measure gives us a tremendous opportunity to set a direction for the v.a. and for

the united states senate, if i may be so bold and perhaps presumptuous to say this measure is truly bipartisan, provides a template for bipartisan action to help our veterans and our military men and women who serve now and set a real lodestar for action by this body. very fittingly, we're here on the floor when the democratic leader senator reid, has returned. i am tremendously heartened by his presence here and by the president's budget today which provides an increase, a proposed increase in health care spending and most especially mental health care spending to $7.4 billion from last year's expenditure of $6.7 billion, significant again in the context

of a bipartisan approach to this issue. this legislation is named for clay hunt, a marine, patriot a veteran who served bravely in iraq. his mom susan selke, is a real hero. she came before the veterans' affairs committee during the last session and her testimony was not only as a patriot and a veterans' advocate but as a family member, and there have been too many family members forced to grieve the loss of their loved ones who have succumbed to suicide as did clay hunt in march of 2011 after struggling valiantly and

courageously with posttraumatic stress and the inadequate care of his local v.a. hospital. far too many of clay hunt's fellow veterans, 22 a day have succumbed to suicide including a friend of mine, justin eldridge of southeastern connecticut. justin braved mortar fire and sniper attacks in afghanistan to return to southeastern connecticut and to his family, his children and his wife joanna suffering from posttraumatic brain injury and posttraumatic stress and tragically, like so many others, justin slipped through the cracks of his local v.a. facility and eventually succumbed in his fight against those inner demons and invisible

wounds when he took his own life. as brave as justin eldridge was on the battlefield he could not win that war at home. how justin and clay fell into that black hole of depression and despair, i will certainly never understand, but we grieve for them and we hope their example of courage will inspire us to face this issue. all too often the response to suicide, whether it's among veterans or others, is denial. it's to turn away, to look the other direction because sometimes it's too painful or there is stigma or shame in

mental health needs. we can conquer that stigma and shame. to its credit, the military is doing more every day. the v.a. has raised awareness and is increasing its commitment. this bill is a tremendous opportunity for the v.a. to be a pioneer and champion in mental health care just as it has been in other areas of health care like amputee rehabilitation and prosthetics and traumatic brain injury. this bill is a down payment. it's the beginning not the end of our commitment and our solutions to the problems. it's a worthwhile measure that take limited targeted steps less than we must eventually do to keep faith with our veterans

and their mental health needs. i hope the committee and this congress will continue in this great bipartisan spirit. i look forward to a continuing partnership with my friend, senator isakson, who is such a leader in this area. as we work on these issues and seek to make progress as quickly as possible, and as we do so, remember all of our veterans from all of the areas of conflict and war in this country. senator isakson is absolutely right that posttraumatic stress and mental health needs are hardly limited to the veterans of iraq and afghanistan. i have worked hard to help veterans of the vietnam and

korea eras. in fact, i successfully championed the needs of our veterans of earlier eras when they have been burdened by less than honorable discharge resulting in posttraumatic stress from an era when posttraumatic stress was not existent as a diagnosis. posttraumatic stress was unknown for our vietnam and korean veterans. it was not unknown as a condition. it was not nonexistent. it was simply unknown as a diagnosis. it was not called posttraumatic stress. it may have been called shell shock or battle fatigue but the horror the nightmares, the cold sweats the headaches and crippling mental issues have

plagued many of our veterans over many eras and many wars, and today we take a step to recognize this nation's obligation to justin eldridge, to clay hunt, to all of our veterans and to joanna eldridge and susan selke and the countless family members who have borne that burden and struggled side by side. when their heroes have awakened at night with the nightmares and the battles that they continue to fight against posttraumatic stress and the invisible wounds and the inner demons that have come back with them from their service. i thank you mr. president and i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. boozman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

senator from arkansas. million boozman: i ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. boozman: thank you mr. president. mr. president, on march 2 1 2007 deborah johnson of sherwood arkansas answered a call no parent should ever receive. her son 23-year-old army private jeremy andrew johnson was dead from a drug overdose. private johnson was diagnosed with protest traumatic stress disorder after his deployment to afghanistan. deborah said she thought he was getting the proper care he needed during the transition out of the military, but when she received a goodbye text from him, she knew he needed more help. the family made his commanders aware of his suicidal thoughts and private johnson was put on suicide watch. three days later deborah answered that horrible call. she shared her family's story with me in hopes that other families can be spared the

anguish of losing a loved one to mental illness. deborah understands that congress has an opportunity to deliver help to veterans, living with mental illness and prevent suicides by passing pac the clay hunt suicide prevention for american veterans act. this legislation would improve mental health care and suicide prevention resources for veterans. by increasing access to mental health programs, providing incentives to recruit and retain psychiatrists to treat veterans and enhancing resources for members of the military transitioning to civilian life. v.a. estimates 22 veterans commit suicide every day. this trend is tragic and it's unacceptable. we need to provide v.a. with the personnel, services, and proper tools to help veterans facing mental illness struggles. these individuals are why we

struggle to identify at-risk individuals as a member of the senate committee on veterans' affairs, my colleagues and i are working to fully understand the scope of mental illness in our veterans community. in the meantime, we're paving the way for improvements. two weeks ago the v.a. committee met for its first order of business in the 114th congress approving the clay hunt save act. i'm proud to say that the committee approved this bill with a bipartisan vote of 15-0. our veterans deserve this care v.a. needs to evaluate its mental health programs using metrics common to mental health practitioners to determine the success of its programs. this legislation will do that. it will help v.a. more efficiently use the taxpayer funding it receives to support the programs most effective for our veterans.

the house approved this bill in january and i'm confident the senate will follow its lead. deborah johnson says she wishes congress would have taken up legislation to improve mental health services years ago. as the president of the arkansas chapter of gold star mothers deborah hears similarities from other families who have suffered a loss because of suicide. she admits that a one-size-fits-all approach will not adequately address mental health struggles but it's hopeful the clay hunt save act will prevent other families from suffering the pain that hers liches with. we owe it to deborah and others like her who have lost loved ones to this battle as well as service members and veterans coping with meant health issues to make this one of the first bills the 114th congress sends to president obama to sign. with that, mr. president, i

suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: mr. president are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are in a quorum call. ms. warren: i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. warren: thank you mr. president. i come to the floor in strong support of the clay hunt suicide prevention for american veterans act. our men and women in uniform serve our country with honor and courage. they put themselves in harm's way day in and day out to protect us. i have a special appreciation for how much service members and their families contribute to our

country and how important it is that we honor their service. all three of my brothers were in the military and my oldest brother was career military, he flew 288 combat combat missions in vietnam. when you grow up with someone in the military you know how lucky you are to see them come home safely. that doesn't mean the sacred trust ends the moment they steph-step off a plane. we owe our hess he service members the very beth bestened, ensuring they have access to high quality services and care including mental health care. the clay hunt act would strengthen critical mental health care services and suicide prevention resources for our country's veterans. we've heard the deeply troubling statistics. the v.a. has reported that 22 veterans die each day from suicide. data collected in the back home

project shows that while 10% of americans served in the military veterans make up 20% of all suicides in the united states. these statistics tell us that something is deeply wrong and that we need to make significant changes. the save act calls for an evaluation of the mental health services and suicide prevention efforts of the department of veterans affairs and department of defense and it launches a pilot program to provide education loan repayment for psychiatrists who work at the v.a. it also helps build stronger partnerships between the v.a. and nonprofit organizations working with veterans in our community. the save act is named for clay hunt a marine veteran who served in iraq and afghanistan and was a strong advocate for improved services for fellow veterans. he suffered with post traumatic

stress and when he was awn able to access the care he needed from the v.a. he took his own life. as clay's mother, susan selky said in her testimony at senate veterans' affairs committee hearing last summer, not one more veteran should have to go through what clay went through with the v.a. after returning home from the war. not one more parent should have to testify before a congressional committee to compel the v.a. to fulfill its responsibilities to those who served and sacrificed. she went on to say the reforms evaluations and programs directed by this legislation will be critical to helping the v.a. better serve and treat veterans suffering from mental injuries from war. had the v.a. been doing these things all along it very well may have saved clay's life. i'm proud that massachusetts has taken steps at the state level

to help improve suicide prevention resources for veterans such as establishing statewide advocacy for veterans empowerment program or save. the save team is comprised of veterans who work directly in the community to correct veterans and their families to services provided by the commonwealth and nonprofits. i've also visited several outstanding community organizations in massachusetts such as veterans, inc. in worcester and the new england center for homeless centers in boston. they work tirelessly to help service members access the full range of services they need and deserve from housing and education to health care. in august i met with veterans in framing ham massachusetts, at a mobile vet center and one of the veterans i heard from was army major justin fitch who was working at the soldier research development and engineering center.

justin, who is battling terminal cancer and has had his own struggles with depression, is retiring from the army just this week. but he is still a powerful and a relentless voice fighting to improve care and prevent suicides among veterans fighting depression and sciek logical -- psychological stress after returning home from war. justin told me too many veterans are suffering in silence. 22 a day is a lot. one is too many. and justin is right. our armed service men and women are tough smart and courageous. they make huge ak fies -- sacrifices to keep our families safe and we owe them all a true debt of gratitude for their service, but gratitude isn't enough. we must do more to protect our men and women in uniform who devote their lives to the service of our country.

it's clear that congress has more work to do to bolster our nation's commitment to supporting veterans and providing the mental health care services that they deserve. the clay hunt save act is an important part of this effort. i hope my colleagues will join me in voting to pass this legislation in the senate. thank you mr. president. i yield and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that the pending quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. whitehouse: thank you mr. president. i'm here now for the 88th time to urge this body to wake up to the looming threat of climate change. in the last few weeks my republican colleagues have talked about climate change here on the floor more than at any other time since i began giving these weekly speeches.

we'd heard next to nothing from republicans about climate change since the 2010 citizens united decision. that decision let loose the fossil fuel industry to cast an even darker shadow of intimidation across this town. so this minorout break of dialogue although minor, has been significant. all but one of my republican colleagues are now on the record saying they agree that climate change is real, and 15 voted that it's caused at least in part by humans. that's some progress. yet, some still persist in their denial. our scientists now tell us that warming of the climate system is unequivocal, yet we equivocate. scientists are a careful bunch. when they say something is

unequivocal, we ought to take note. the senior senator from oklahoma our chairman of the environment and public works committee, however maintains that human-caused climate change is a hoax. he thinks it is arrogant to say that humans could cause the climate to change. what's really arrogant, mr. president, is thinking that we can ignore the laws of nature, the laws of physics the laws of chemistry the laws of biology. whose laws do we think those are? those laws were given to us by our creator. they came with this world. they are immutable. these laws of nature dictate that carbon dioxide is the by-product of our burning of fossil fuels. these laws of nature, fresh from

the hands of our creator explain why that carbon traps heat in our atmosphere, something we have known since abraham lincoln was riding around this town in his top hat. and here in the senate, we have no human power to amend or repeal those laws. and we shouldn't here in this senate cherry pick from the scientific record. that's not fair play. here on the floor the e.p.w. chairman paraphrased a 2013 paper from the journal nature. this is his quote. the author of the paper dr. chris hunting ford of the u.c.'s environmental research council took exception to his paper being, thus, mischaracterized. he said this: "our nature paper

strictly analyzes only year-to-year variability fluctuations and temperature. we do not at any point offer evidence against a general ongoing background and upwards warming trend. detection and aattributions studies show the observed increasing temperatures are almost certainly a consequence of the burning of fossil fuels." end quote. in that same floor speech, my colleague from oklahoma suggested that we could relax about climate change because the munich reassurance company said weather-related disaster causes declined as a proportion of g.d.p. worldwide. he neglected to mention taxpayer before our e. -- to mention testimony before our e.p.w. committee last year by carl heada, to wit and i'll quote him "due to our history of

ensuring national catastrophe munich read was one of the first companies to recognize a changing climate could have on its business model and customers." he went on to say that as a nation we need to take steps to reduce societal impacts of weather events as we say greater vulnerability and volatility in our climate." the senior senator from oklahoma has even resurrected the ghost of climate-gate, a faux scandal whipped up by polluters and their allies to suggest scientists were colluding to exaggerate global warming data. it turned out it was the cooked up phony scandal that was exaggerated and not the data. so-called climategate should accurately be called

climategate-gate. years later this zombie falsehood still staggers about the floor of the senate attempting to cast out on human-caused climate change. polluters have relentlessly made it their business to misconstrue the findings of scientific works and cling to discredited accusations. we would do well to listen to the overwhelming majority of practicing publishing climate scientists who agree that our carbon pollution is altering the climate. scientists who conduct experiments, who examine data, who arrive at conclusions who submit their work through peer review and who make their data accessible for due diligence by other researchers. it's the best science out there. but i'm afraid that science doesn't have the ear of the senior senator from oklahoma. he showed us who he listens to. he brought a chart here to the floor showing several dozen

recognized scientists, as he called them, who don't buy the climate consensus. that chart was produced by an outfit called the heartland institute. you may remember them for associating climate scientists with the unabomber. classy group. well their scientists, so-called, included bloggers, columnists staff of conservative think tanks a member of the european parliament and many scientists who have been funded by the fossil fuel industry. mr. president, i'll side with the scientists affiliated with the american association for the advancement of science over a bunch of carefully selected bloggers. i'll trust nasa and noaa over scientists who work for the fossil fuel industry. it is a sophisticated network of climate denial propped up by the

carbon-polluting fossil fuel industry. it's a front group fueled by the special interests and their dubious experts. interestingly, if you go to oklahoma state university, you find one of the experts on this. dr. riley dunlap at oklahoma state could tell his senator all about it. professor dunlap is one of the preeminent researchers into the deliberate and coordinated effort by corporate interests to spread denial propaganda and to distort public opinion on climate change, what he calls the -- quote -- organized climate denial machine end quote. dunlap and a colleague found that nearly 90% of climate denial books coming out of publishing houses between 1982 and 2010, guess what, had ties to conservative fossil fuel funded think tanks such as the heartland institute. the whole thing is a rigged game

and a phony and there is a very good professor at the -- at oklahoma state university who keeps track of it. mr. president, i also have here a fact sheet from the oklahoma climatological survey, its statement on climate change and its implications for oklahoma. here's what it says in plain language -- the earth's climate has warmed during the last 100 years. the earth's climate will continue to warm for the foreseeable future. and much of the global average temperature increases over the last 50 years can be attributed to human activities, particularly increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. that's actually a noncontroversial statement among regular scientists. mr. president, this is no radical with some political agenda. this is a fact sheet from a state scientific agency. it happens to be oklahoma's. and here's what the agency expects this means for

oklahoma -- earlier maturation of winter wheat and orchard crops, leaving them more vulnerable to late freeze events. drier and warmer conditions increasing the risk of wildfires. rain-free periods lengthening with individual rainfall events becoming more intense. and more runoff and flash flooding. i ask unanimous consent to submit this for the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: the national climate assessment estimates that by the end of the century the temperatures in the southern great plains will increase up to nine degrees. mark schaefer is a researcher at the oklahoma climatological survey who contributed to the national climate assessment. he told the newspaper "the oklahoman" that in a few decades oklahoma could see an entire month of 100-degree-plus temperatures every summer. by century's end daily high temperatures could top 100 degrees for the entire

summer. as the climate warms droughts will probably get worse both more severe and more frequent. nine oklahoma professors from oral roberts university, southern nazarene university and the university of tulsa were among 200 evangelical scientists and academics to sign a 2014 letter to congress imploarg us to address climate change. all of god's creation, says the letter is growning under the weight of our uncontrolled use of fossil fuels. the threat to future generations and global prosperity, it continues, means we can no longer afford the complacency and endless debate. we as a society risk being counted among those who destroy the earth. those who know the bible here will know that that reference to those who destroy the earth comes from revelations. mr. president, i'll quote from

revelations. and thy wrath has come and the time that thou shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth. the letter warns that the way we live harms our neighbors threatening to create more empty wells, devastated cropland, lost villages environmental refugees and disease. i ask unanimous consent to enter that letter from the 200 evangelical christian scientists into the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. whitehouse: finally mr. president, at the oklahoma state university -- at the university of oklahoma, berrien moore, iii is dean of the college of atmosphere and geographic sciences, and he is also director of the national weather center. dean moore of the university of oklahoma was a lead author on the intergovernmental panel on climate change report, which the

senator from oklahoma is so fond of disparaging. dr. moore's work helped the ipcc earn the nobel peace prize in 2007. he has won research accolades from noaa and from nasa. in 2009, dr. moore testified before the house committee on science and technology. here's what he had to say about climate change. on the increasing strength of earth's science we now can state that global warming is unequivocal. there is that word again. but this simply sets the challenge. we need now -- this is five years ago by the way -- we need now to develop the capability to monitor and thereby manage greenhouse gas emissions through this century and beyond. the challenge is growing and will not go away. mr. president, the effects of climate change are all too real today in oklahoma, in rhode

island and across the nation. if you don't believe me, go to oklahoma state and the university of oklahoma and talk to the scientists i just mentioned. the outlook for us if we fail to act is increasingly dark, but look again at oklahoma. the sooner state is the fourth largest producer of wind power in the country. wind turbines there make progress towards energy independence and they give oklahoma farmers steady income as a hedge against droughts and extreme weather. so you farm and you get paid for having the wind turbine located on your farm. it is a win-win. gary mcmanus the oklahoma state climatologist, has given a number of presentations on climate change and its likely effects on his home state. he often prefaces those talks with this admonition. this is the science. it's up for you to decide what you do with it.

you can either ignore it or you can use it. mr. president, in my view, there will be a high price in harm and in infamy to this democracy if we continue to ignore it. so i say let's use it. but first we'll have to wake up. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: today i'm glad to be joined by senator casey of pennsylvania in introducing bipartisan legislation to improve upon the already immensely successful college 529 program. those are saving plans to go to college. 529 plans have helped millions earn a college degree without piling up a mountain of debt.

these plans have long had strong bipartisan support and i'm glad the introduction of this bill today continues that tradition given the bipartisan nature of 529 plans it came as a shock to me and i'm sure to most of my colleagues when the president put forth a proposal that would undermine years of hard work towards making savings for college as accessible as it is today. college savings vehicles we know by -- and we know -- now know by the tax code section -- that's where section 529 comes from -- were first started by states in the late 198 os. however, it was only after a bipartisan effort led by

then-senator bob graham of florida and senator mcconnell now our majority leader in 1996 that these savings plans were finally enshrined in section 529 of the tax code. by recognizing college savings plans in the tax code, states and participants could now be certain about the favorable tax treatment they would receive and thus the plans flourished. during this time, individuals parents and grandparents were able to contribute to savings plans with certainty that the college savings for themselves or loved ones would accumulate tax free. however, while 529 plans could accumulate interest tax free, tax was still owed once money was distributed to pay for

college. so in 2001, then as chairman of the finance committee i worked with senator baucus of montana and others to advance a proposal to further enhance college savings. it did this by excluding distributions from 529 plans from income tax so long as the money was used to pay for college education costs. we were then successful in making this provision permanent in the tax law as part of the pension protection act of 2006. this change helped 529 plans take off to even new heights from 2001-2002 assets in these plans doubled from $13 billion to $26 billion and totaled

nearly $245 billion by july last year. the total number of accounts also nearly doubled. the number of accounts increased from 2.4 million in 2001 to 4.4 million in 2002 and increased to nearly 12 million july of last year. the misguided proposal put forth in the president's state of the union address has the potential to reverse these gains by once again subjecting distribution to tax. the policy rationale given by the president was that too much of the benefits for 529 plans went to more affluent households and individuals. i believe a big reason the president's proposal was met

with bipartisan disapproval is that we all know firsthand through communications with our constituents back home that the typical family with the 529 account is one with only modest means. we hear about how they have scrimped and pinched pennies so that they could put money away for their child's college. they have a dream of sending their child to college and graduate without crushing amount of debt holding them back as they start their new career postcollege. data from the college savings plan network backs up this anecdotal evidence that we receive at the grassroots of our constituencies. on a national basis the average account balance is under $21,000, and for iowa, the average balance is slightly

lower than $17,878. this is obviously hard evidence that a typical family contributing to a 529 account is far from being part of the wealthy elite that the president wants us to pleeive that they are. a private study commissioned by college savings foundation further demonstrates that these accounts are largely held by middle-class families. according to this study about 10% of 529 accounts are owned by households with income below d 50,000 -- $50,000 over 70% owned by householdsholds with income below -- and almost 95% of all 529 accounts are in households with incomes below $ed 250,000.

the bill i introduce today with democratic senator casey will help build on the success that has so far been achieved by increasing the attractiveness of 529 plans. this bill has three primary provisions. the first provision recognizes the reality that in today's world a computer is just as much a necessary educational tool and the expense associated with it as a required class textbook. as such, this bill allows 5 529 funds to purchase a computer on the same tax roll basis as other required materials. the second provision eliminates an outdated and unnecessary aggregation rule that increases paperwork and costs on plans

administrators. the final provision provides tax and penalty relief in instances where a student may have to withdraw from school for illness or other reasons. under current law any refunds from the college are subject to immediate taxation and a 10% tax penalty. this provision eliminates this tax and penalty if the refund is redeposited in a 529 account. this permits a family to set their refund aside to pay for a student's education should that student be able to return to college or to use it for another family member. mr. president, the reforms in 529 plans included in senator casey's and my bill are very modest but will help keep administrative costs low and

provide a little extra incentive for parents to put money away for their child's education. the bill further demonstrates a renewed bipartisan commitment to 529 plans that will hopefully help erase concerns some may have in contributing to 529's given the president's misguided proposal. i hope that congress will act on this legislation and speak with a loud bipartisan voice on its commitment to child -- to college savings. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the absence of a quorum is noticed and the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. brown: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you. i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you. one year and a week ago on a cold snowy morning in cleveland ohio not much different from when i woke up this morning on a cold snowy morning in cleveland, ohio, i attended a martin luther king jr. memorial breakfast in that town.

a minister said something we all know but probably haven't thought about and rarely have put in such succinct meaningful words. he said, "your life expectancy is connected to your zip code." your life expectancy is connected to your zip code." think about that. whether you grew up in a city or a suburb or a small town, affluent less affluent, low-income rural urban your zip code often depends on whether you have access to quality health care, to a dpood solid education -- to a good, solid education to the support necessary to succeed. it is up to this body to help ensure not to do it, not to do it alone but to help ensure that in every zip code -- that every zip code is one that provides opportunity, not inequality. the zip code where my wife and i live in the city of cleveland

ten years ago had the highest foreclose rate of any zip code in america. think about that means to a family where a 12-year-old child with two parents the father gets laid off from work, the mother has had her hours cut back they can't pay their mortgage even though they were doing everything right they sit down with their 12-year-old daughter and say honey we're going to have to move, but we don't know where we're going yet. we don't know what school district you're going to be. we don't know how close to here we can stay so that you'll be with your friends. those kinds of decisions happen far too often in this society those kinds of scenarios happen far too often. but we know in many ways we've made progress. 50 years ago the poverty rate was 26%. today it is around 15% thanks in large part to what people in this institution have done in social insurance programs like the affordable care act like medicaid like today's

children's health insurance program -- so-called chip. there was no greater chafn onin the united states senate for children's health than my predecessor, than the senator from west virginia, who actually sat at this desk on the senate floor, retired senator jay rockefeller. helped to write chip in 1997. i was a member of the house house subcommittee of the energy and commerce committee at that time. i pleeive the presiding officer sat in that committee when he was in the house many years ago. we worked on writing chip in 1997. it was a joint program for low- to moderate-income women and children. most of the people in most cases -- in most cases shall the children in the chip program in today's childrentoday's children's health insurance program chip provides

for low-income children who fall into a kofnlg gap. they make too much to qualify for medicaid but don't make enough to qualify for private insurance. many employers don't offer the private insurance. they don't make enough money to pay the insurance. today's chip, today's children, the current chip bridges this gap. i am honored to continue the fight to protect this program ensure that congress acts to extend funding for the current program before it expires at the end of september. you'll notice i say "today's chip." the current program -- when chip started in 1997 it was a good program. it was started in the senate by senator rockefeller senator kennedy, senator hatch, very much bipartisan, passed overwhelmingly. those of us who wooed in the house, congressman bilirakis and i made sure it was bipartisan. over the 20 years of chip, each

time it has been re-thorksd we've made it better. we've extended the benefits because we've seen where the coverage gaps are. we've made it more efficient work better. we've kept its bipartisan nature -- kept the bipartisan nature to it and that's why i refer to it as today's chip, as the current program. mr. president, providing health insurance to low-income children isn't just the right thing to to do, it is the smart thing to do. it is the right thing to do because these are families where the parents are working hard, taking responsibility but simply can't afford health insurance for their child. today i was in cleveland with a couple of people, shante and her daughter amari. ms. sanders is a young woman with two children. amari is 9-year-old. ms. sanders told me that she is working, she's raising her children rourke of work and she's

in school studying studying to be a nurse at cuyahoga college. if this program expires if chip expires, she said, i don't want to be in the position where i have to choose between taking my daughter to a doctor for an ear earache -- an ear infection versus trying to buy enough food or a more serious illness or injury than that. why should she be subjected to that? thanks to children, the number of uninsured children has fallen by half. 14% when senator hatch and senator kennedy and senator rockefeller wrote this program. congressman bilirakis and i and others in the house wrote it. from 14% 20 years ago -- almost 20 years ago to a record low of 7%. because of today's chip, 10 million children -- 130,000 in my state alone of ohio -- 10 million children have access to health care, health care they may not have received otherwise. over the past week, i have a he

met with parents across ohio. i met with jennifer hewitt in cincinnati and listened to her story and listened to a family in dayton about what chip means to thevment it provides -- think about this. it provides a sigh of relief for parents like shante and jennifer not only for financial reasons but because chip means better access for preventive care. too often if you are right on the edge, you are maying $12 or $14 or less an hour, you don't have medicaid -- think about the choices you know you have to make. if you -- you can't take your child into the doctor if they're only kind of sick. if you had insurance you'd take her in. but she is kind of sick and it may get worse. well, i'll only take her in if it get worse. think of the tension in a difficult life that people have generally anyway at that income level. think how much difficult that is. chip which in owe is

administered through -- which in iaea isowe so administered through comid. see a family doctor preventing a costly ambulance ride in emergency room visit. chip means a bunch of things. it means vaccines, it means shots. it means dental coverage. it means better treatment if kids get sick and think about this. it is not just the heblg. it means they do better in school. they miss fewer days in school, so they don't fall behind their classmates who have better insurance perhaps. it means that they perform better in school because they feel better. we all know the stories of hungry children or sick children in the classroom simply can't focus on what they need to dovment chip means children will get the health care they need to become healthy active adults. we know that the current chip program today's 2015 version of chip works not just in the number of insured under the program but because of the

flexibility it provides states, the quality of care children receive. ohio's conservative republican governor supports chip. it is called healthy start in ohio because he has been given -- the governors and legislatures have been given flexibility under chip to make it work for that state. chip -- in chip -- the flexibility that chip provides states is the result of 20 years of watching and observing and quantifying and analyzing chip. 20 years of -- 18 -- not quite 20 18 years of experience in seeing what works best and working better to make improvements. more kids are covered and the coverage they go to is gert. if we don't act understand that children the authorization -- the language, the law governing chip is in effect until 2019 but the funding for chip runs out in september of this year. you have to have both. you have to have the law governing chip, how it works

how the states have flexibility but you also need the money obviously to implement. if congress doesn't act now first of all ohio, my state would lose $146 million in federal funds 2016 alone. the presiding officer's state of indiana would lose tens of millions of dollars in chip funding. and we know -- another thing -- whether it is governor pence in indiana or my governor, they need the flexibility of knowing what exong is going to do. we shouldn't wait until july or august. we should refund -- reallocate money for chip today. if he would don't act pairptses like shanee and jennifer may not be able to provide the quality to get the quality affordable care for their children as states would start to roll back chip programs. that's why i'm introducing legislation soon to protect the program to extend its funding so that it runs out the same time as the authorization the language -- the road map if you will of how chip will work.

if we let the program run out of funding, the number of uninsured children will increase, the quality of health care will decrease states will see a significant increase in cost-sharing services. pr protecting -- providing health insurance to low-income children isn't just the right -- isn't just the right thing to do, it's the smart thing to do. the program works it works for children it works for parents, it works for communities, it works for our great country. i call on my colleagues to work with me and extend funding for the current chip program before it's too late. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. kaine: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: can i ask are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. kaine: can i is ask the quorum call be suspended.

the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. kaine: i rise because i want to speak about the importance of this d.h.s. funding bill that is going to be before the body in the coming days and in particular i want to emphasize what i think is the important imperative that we pass what we're calling a clean bill to fund the department of homeland security for the remainder of fiscal year 2015 through the end of september. that clean bill would be a bill that would fund homeland security without attaching additional items to it concerning immigration. in support of this legislation was something that we worked together on, we negotiated in december as part of a budget process by leaders of both parties in both chambers, and the funding for d.h.s. would have been an increase to help protect our borders and help protect our security by about $1.2 billion above the enacted level for fiscal year 2014. but at the end of the year as the house to not fund this piece, leave it separate and

that's why we're talking about whether or not we will fund the nation's homeland security efforts and under what circumstances. all -- 45 members of the democratic side, save only senator reid who was not on this letter because of his hospitalization, have written a letter saying let's just go ahead and make sure we fund d.h.s. at the level that we've already agreed to between the houses and let's not play politics over immigration issues let's take up immigration separately. but the house bill that has been sent to us includes measures to begin to block or unwind actions taken by the president on immigration, and those complicate what all should agree is a national imperative which is the need to fund homeland security and if we don't pass such a bill, that funding will expire on the 28th of february. i don't need to explain too much why homeland security funding is important but let me just make a few points. this was a department that was created after the attacks of

9/11 and its stated mission while it employees an -- employs an awful lot of people, the mission is quite simple. let's keep our country safe, secure and resilient between against terrorism and other hazards. we see every day the kind of terrorism hazards that we're dealing with, the horrible shooting in paris a few weeks ago, the shooting in quebec reminds us of the dangers of terrorism and now that we're in a war against isil, a jihadist terrorist enemy that has promised to carry out attacks against the united states we should be very concerned about the mission that h.h.s. permits and the need to provide funding. the men and women who work for d.h.s. are a suicide swath of employees. they're the t.s.a. personnel who protect our transportation system, border patrol agents who serve on our nation's front lines, customs officials who oversee the entrance and exit of nearly one million visitors per day who come to the united

states and we need customs agents to process those visitors. our d.h.s. folks include disaster specialist, who respond to hurricanes and other emergencies, our coast guard our secret service and many of our cybersecurity professionals all work for the d.h.s. and they work hard every day to carry out that mission of keeping our nation safe. funding d.h.s. is not just critical to the nation's security it's critical to the economy because the d.h.s. is the third largest agency of federal government by the number of employees. the impact of any shutdown or cessation of funding would reverberate throughout the country from our southwest border to our nation's ports to every international airport that bring in either foreign commerce or foreign visitors who want to come and be tourists in our country. many d.h.s. employees call virginia home, and a shutdown would impact their lives and make it difficult for them to plan not only for their immediate needs but for an unknown period of time. and so as we're facing threats

and i think we all would agree while we have sometimes differences of opinion about how to deal with threats i think everybody in this body would acknowledge that the threats that we're dealing with as a nation are not shrinking they're growing the challenges we're facing are not getting fewer in number, they're greater in number and to respond to threats the d.h.s. not only needs a good funding bill at an appropriate level which we've already agreed to but they need a financial certainty and the flexibility to direct its resources as they can. mr. president, let me just give you one interesting recent example of how d.h.s. employees have been very important in virginia and though serving in virginia have served a critical role for the nation. we saw a crisis in be 2014 many of us hadn't paid attention to before the spread of the ebola vier it's in africa -- virus in average. it's the largest in history for

this kind of virus and had a significant impact on many he west african countries, more than 22,000 confirmed cases as of january 2015. whenever there is a challenge like this nations of the world turn to the united states and ask for our help and many parts of our government responded we've deployed military and health professionals to africa to battle the disease there but we've also deployed our d.h.s. personnel right here at home to keep us safe. as part of the strategy to -- strategy to stop ebola d.h.s. announced in october five u.s. airports would begin an advanced screening process for ebola and one is in virginia, it's dulles airport. shortly afterward, d.h.s. announced all travelers from ebola infected countries would enter through one of these five airports. using existing resources -- with existing resources. we didn't have an ebola line item in the 2014 budget.

this was annual emergency that came up. with existing resources the it was employees at dulles were charged with supervising the entire ebola screening process. administering questionnaires, taking travelers' temperatures and referring potentially up effected people to the centers for disease control while also doing all their regular duties. these oars officers in virginia have gone above and beyond their mission for the sake of keeping every american safe. since this advanced screening back in october c.b.b. officers have interviewed more than 2,000 visitors from african countries and referred more than 140 people to the c.d.c. as a result of their work and their colleagues and their ability to react to this threat, the united states has only seen two diagnosed cases of ebola since advanced screenings began at our airports and both parents recovered and this should be viewed as a huge success. remember how worried we were, how worried i was when this was

happening in september and october. our d.h.s. have gone the extra mile to keep us safe. this is the kind of mission that we call upon for our d.h.s. employees to carry out for our security. it has nothing to do with congressional debates about immigration policy but it has everything to do with doing the stated mission and keeping us safe. to limit d.h.s.'s access to resources by shutting down the agency or passing another continuing resolution that would keep them running on autopilot driving by looking in the rear view mirror rather than the windshield at the challenges to come would damage the ability of d.h.s. to deal with growing threats. now, i understand the message from the house. we've agreed on the right funding level for d.h.s. they just say we will only fund d.h.s. only fund the guys protecting us from isil or protecting us from ebola or protecting our ports from, you know nuclear material being shipped in, only fund it if we can get an agreement to change

policies enacted by the president with immigration. they're threatening to stop funding d.h.s. actions unless we reverse the president's immigration actions, actions in my view that are helping the economy by bringing families out of the shadows to become productive tax paying members in our communities. while i support the president's immigration actions vomit strong strong, and most of them -- vomit and i -- strongly and i voted for them in june of 2013 i understand there may be members of the house that may not like a those actions and want to do something different and the great thing is they've got an ability to do something different. the house with a significant republican majority can pass their own immigration reform bill. they can retract the president's actions. express what they want 20 do with immigration reform and pass that bill like they passed the d.h.s. funding bill and send it over to the senate and we can

have a debate about immigration reform. but we can have that debate without holding hostage the funding of the third largest agency in government, without holding hostage the work that agency does every day to keep us safe. i think the good news in all of this is in both the house and senate there can people who think the immigration system is broken the immigration system needs to be fixed and that we ought to have a dialogue blog dialogue to do it. when the senate passed a immigration reform bill in june of 2013, nearly two years ago we knew the house would not adopt what the senate passed without changing anything, we were trying to start a dialogue where the house could could pass their own bill and we could sit down and work out a solution to a immigration system we all think is broken. that's what we should be doing as responsible legislators fixing an immigration system and those of us with different

views, getting them on the table and finding a compromise. but it's the wrong thing to do to try to hold up funding for the third largest agency in government. this agency that's keeping us safe in so many ways all over this country every day to try to reverse actions the president took well within his legal authority. so i'm going to continue to support the president's executive actions i'm going to continue to encourage the house and others if they have different ideas about immigration reform, pass a bill, put them on the table and we'll talk about them but it is wrong to try to hold up protecting our nation's security as a punishment to the president for using executive actions that he was within his legal power to make. since we have the complete ability to have a discussion about immigration let's do it. i'll just conclude, mr. president, and say this -- i wish i didn't have to and maybe particularly looking at these young pages who are sitting in front of me, it's a dangerous world out there. you know for the sake of these

youngsters and my own ids can i wish it was getting less dangerous. i got a son in the military. i wish it was getting less dangerous but it's not. it's getting more dangerous. and the kinds of threats that we have to face abroad and at home are tough challenge,, difficult threats and we have his professionals on the front line every day many risking their lives to try to stop these threats. let's not starve their work. let's not hamper their work. let's not make them face the threat of a shutdown or losing their salary or losing their livelihood while we wait for congress to have a meaningful debate about immigration. mr. president, i appreciate the opportunity to offer those thoughts and to urge funding for a clean d.h.s. bill, and with that i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from utah.

mr. lee: mr. president tomorrow afternoon the senate will vote to begin consideration of a bill called h.r. 240. this is a bill that authorizes funding for the department of homeland security, or d.h.s. it would fund d.h.s. through september of this year. this of course is a procedural vote that we have scheduled for tomorrow not a substantive one. the only question on the table the sole question in connection with this particular vote will be whether or not the senate is ready to begin voting and debating on h.r. 240. well mr. president, i am ready. i'm eager in fact to begin this debate and it does need to begin, and that is what this vote is about. not because we have only 25 days before the current budget authority for d.h.s. expires but also, mr. president because this debate will finally allow

the american people to see where their elected representatives right here in the united states senate stand on president obama's recent executive action on immigration. mr. president, the legislature is the only law-making branch within our federal government because it's the only deliberative branch in our government. before congress enacts a piece of legislation before it makes a new piece of law we first debate the merits of that legislation, weighing the various pros and cons of each proposal in a candid and transparent discussion, and allowing the various sides of the issue to make their case. open robust debate is not merely incidental to the law-making process that goes on here. it is the essence of that law-making process. it's at the very heart the very center the very core of this process that we hold near and

dear and that was established by our 227-year-old founding document. it's the only way for members of congress to fully explore the costs and the consequences of a particular policy under consideration. and it's the only way for the american people to know exactly where their elected officials stand on an issue and just as importantly, why they stand where they stand. when the president of the united states announced in november of last year that he was single-handedly going to rewrite our immigration laws in effect, he short circuited this process of debate and of deliberation. that's at the very heart of our constitutional law-making process. his announcement showed us what in fact it looks like when one person ignores the limits of his office and claims the power to change the law all on his own just as an expression of his own

unilateral will. policies are written behind closed doors. in consultation with lawyers and special interest groups rather than the american people. and the law is pronounced from behind a podium as a fait accompli rather than discussed and debated in an open, transparent, fair contest of ideas. open to inspection by 300 million americans who will be affected by these decisions. this mr. president, is not how our republic works and it is not what the american people expect from their elected officials in washington d.c. indeed poll after poll shows that most people disapprove of the president's executive action on immigration, that same action taken just this last november. even those who agree with the president on policy grounds

even those who think that the president's amnesty action would be the kind of policy that they would prefer, even those people disagree with the president on process because the american people understand that the process does matter, especially among those people who have taken an oath to uphold, protect and defend the constitution of the united states, that same document that prescribes the formula by which our laws are made. according to one poll, when asked if the president should -- quote -- "sidestep congress and act on his own using executive orders" only 22% of the public said that he should. 22%. hardly a rousing mandate from the american people. in other words the american people know what our president seems to have forgotten that in a constitutional republic, the ends don't justify the means.

the american people oppose lawmaking by fiat, not out of some abstract loyalty to the abstract concept of separation of powers. no that's not why. rather they understand quite intuitively that when a president sidesteps congress and avoids open, robust debate on a particular policy, it's probably because the public isn't likely to accept, isn't likely to like the substance of that policy. otherwise, he wouldn't need to take this kind of action. otherwise, doakd it through the people -- he could do it through the people's duly elected representatives who have been put in office specifically for the purpose of making law through this open, deliberative, transparent process. this is certainly what we've seen in the aftermath of the president's executive orders on

immigration. the more the people discover about the content and about the consequences of his policy, the less they like it. for instance, the president claimed that his executive order would honor the golden rule of american exceptionalism, that if you work hard and play by the rules, you can get ahead. but we now know that his plan subverts that very basic fundamental bargain. by paving a path to citizenship for millions of immigrants who have broken the rules and violated the law and by granting them work permits and benefits like social security and medicare. likewise, we were told that the president's executive order would make our immigration system more fair and more functional more accessible for everyone. but we now know that his plan will only exacerbate the problems in our labor market for

american workers by giving more power and more money to the dysfunctional u.s. citizenship and immigration services or uscis. this is the agency within the department of homeland security that was reported to have given over 900,000 work permits to illegal immigrants since 2009. and we know that unless we do something to stop it, unless we do something to reach back and take back our constitutional privilege, our institutional privilege as the law-making branch of the federal government the president's executive order will go into effect at a time when all net job growth in our economy since 2007 has gone to immigrants. mr. president, these are the kinds of facts and figures that ought to inform the legislative process and that ought to not be treated as some sort of

afterthought. and these are not coincidentally the kinds of observations, kinds of facts and figures, kinds of details that could have been and should have been and undoubt lid inevitably would have been explored had this been policy implemented through the constitutionally prescribed formula. last november the president may have chosen to ignore these facts and to circumvent debate altogether but that doesn't mean we have to respond in kind. that certainly doesn't mean we have to exit late -- to capitulate and say the way he wants to do it is fine. it is not constitutional, it's not legal, it is not what the american people want but we have to accept it. no. on the contrary, i believe we have not just a right but we have a duty, we have an affirmative obligation, mr. president, to make every effort to ensure that lawmaking by edict does not become the new

normal in this country. not now not ever, not in the united states of america. beginning debate on this bill will give us the opportunity to do just that, to make sure that this never becomes the new normal. now some have said that we shouldn't be debating the president's executive action on immigration right now. they say it has nothing to do with the funding the operations of the department of homeland security. to this, i have a very simple reply. if not now when? when is it going to do it? if we're not going to do it right now, when are we going to do it? when will there be a better time? when there be a more adequate time for us to respond to this overreach, this grave injustice? if we don't debate the legality of the president's executive

orders when we're in the very process of authorizing money to the department that's tasked with carrying out those very orders then when exactly will we have that debate? the truth is that now is the perfect time because it's the only time. it is the only time when we can do this. it's the only time for us to have a meaningful debate on the president's executive action on immigration. at any other point our debate is more or less hypothetical. now is the time when we're exercising our constitutional power of the purse that our debate has consequences, real consequences consequences that the american people can see and feel consequences that will inure to the benefit or detriment of the american people. now is the time when this needs to be debated. the power of the purse is the power to allocate money to fund

government operations as well as the power to withhold money from improper or illegitimate government operations. it's what enables congress and only congress, uniquely congress to reform dysfunctional government. we like to talk about the power of the purse as a tool that congress can use use as a check and a balance against the excesses of an overbearing president, and that's absolutely true. there's no doubt about that. but first and foremost, it's a tool for members of congress themselves to represent the interests of our constituents and to fix the very things that are broken within our government. our constitution grants the legislative branch, this branch, congress the power of the purse not simply to achieve some

abstract equilibrium or balance in power but to compel the national government to truly represent the american people and to be faithful stewards of taxpayer funds. mr. president, at the end of november of last year, president obama made his choice. it was an unfortunate choice. it was a wrong choice. it was a choice not backed up by law, not backed up by the u.s. constitution and inconsistent with the same. president obama made his choice in november. now it's time for us to make ours. the president chose to sidestep congress and in the process to avoid debate and to rewrite our immigration laws on his own. now we must decide are we going to be a deliberative body?

are we going to be a sort of rubber stamp for the president's agenda whoever the president happens to be in power whether it's now or years from now? are we going to be that kind of legislative body that just rubber stamps what the president does or are we going to exercise our prerogative as an independent coordinate branch of this government to make sure that our laws are faithfully, carefully executed and in a manner consistent not only with the wishes of the people, but also with the formula prescribed by the constitution. are we going to acquiesce to an executive who disregards the boundaries of his office, or are we going to stand up for the rule of law and for the will of the american people? i choose the latter. i urge my colleagues to choose the latter. i hope my colleagues will join me in voting to at least begin debate on h.r. 240. this is a debate that the

american people have been waiting for congress to have for far too long. if not now when? the time is now. we need to get on this bill. we need to debate it. we need to allow our constituents to be heard. the american people have a will and that will is expressed through regular elections. those elections choose those people who occupy seats in this chamber and in the house of representatives. we must represent them, and we must do so in a manner that's fully consistent with the oath that every one of us has taken as required by article 6 of the constitution. we can begin to do that by voting to proceed to h.r. 240 tomorrow. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: i ask the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: mr. president last night tens of millions of americans watched the super bowl a game that's become something of a national tradition, an american holiday. and for good reason -- competition, grit, hard work can bring out the best in all of us, but not all americans were watching. last night just like every other night of the year, there were young american men and women humbly and without complaint shouldering the burden of protecting their fellow citizens from harm. some were doing this overseas in

places both familiar and unfamiliar to us, and others were here in america doing the hard training that is necessary to hone their warrior skills to protect us. mr. president, i had the privilege of being with thousands of these fine young americans last night at the army's national training center what's called n.t.c., at fort irwin, california. just like in the super bowl, they were in the field engaged in fierce competition force-on-force operations as part of some of the best, most challenging military training anywhere in the world. but unlike the super bowl, there were no winners or losers. last night just winners. and among the participants at n.t.c. are 3,000 soldiers from a

battle-hardened army striker brigade based in fairbanks alaska along with hundreds of paratroopers from other military bases across alaska. mr. president, i felt immense pride in watching them train last night. these young men and women volunteers all selflessly stand ready to fight and give their lives for our great country. and with all due respect to my distinguished colleagues from new england who are deservedly celebrating today, it is very important to keep in mind america's true patriots were on the field last night in places like fort irwin and baghdad and kabul. we have an important opportunity to honor their service tomorrow as we prepare to vote on a bipartisan bill to make sure that the patriots and our

military have the resources and care that can help them fight the despair of suicide. tomorrow we vote on the clay hunt suicide prevention act which i was proud to cosponsor and help pass out of the veterans' affairs committee. this bill is named for a true american hero, a decorated marine who fought in afghanistan and iraq, who struggled with despair and ultimately took his own life. this bill will start to bring greater awareness and services to the devastation that too many of our finest fall sway to. i encourage all of my distinguished colleagues to vote for this bill tomorrow so we can get it on the president's desk for his signature as soon as possible. a vote tomorrow will be a vote

for clay hunt, for his courageous family and for all the families and their loved ones who have lost someone to the national tragedy of suicide. this will be a vote for my state, alaska, which proudly boasts the highest number of veterans per capita in the united states but sadly has the highest rates of suicide in our country. and this is also a personal vote for me. it's a story that i don't share often or lightly. as an officer in the marine corps both on active duty and in the reserves, i have personally witnessed the struggles at times tragic, that some of our service men and women undergo. the suicide of a young alaskan marine under my command still haunts me. you always wonder could i have

done more. with the proper awareness and resources, this marine might be alive today. that is why we need legislation like the clay hunt bill. mr. president, when i cast my vote tomorrow, it will be a vote for all of our veterans, but particularly for the families who have suffered the unspeakable pain of suicide. this is a good bill. it's a good start. as my distinguished colleague from connecticut calls it, this bill is a down payment on our debt to our veterans. it won't solve all the problems they face, including rates of suicide among men's that are far too high in this country but it's an important beginning. i ask my colleagues to vote on

this bill tomorrow. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, we are not in a quorum call, are we? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. we are not in a quorum call. mr. cornyn: mr. president i would ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 62 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 62 designating the week beginning on february 8, 2015, as national tribal colleges and universities week. mr. cornyn: mr. president i would ask -- the presiding officer: is there objection for proceeding? without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president i would ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president i understand there are two bills at the desk and i would ask for their first reading en bloc. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the titles of the bills for the first time. the clerk: s. 338 a bill to permanently reauthorize the land and water conservation fund. s. 339 a bill to repeal the patient protection and affordable care act and the health care and education reconciliation act of 2010 entirely. mr. cornyn: i now ask for a second reading and i object to my own request all en bloc. the presiding officer: objection having been heard the bills will be read for the second time on the next legislative day. mr. cornyn: mr. president i would ask unanimous consent that the appointments at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: and finally mr. president, i'd ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. tuesday, february 3, that following the prayer and the pledge the morning business be deemed expired the journal of

proceedings be approved to date and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. following leader remarks the senate will be in a period of morning business for one hour with each senator permitted to speak therein equally divided with the democrats controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the final half. following morning business, the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar 6 h.r. 203 the clay hunt sav act with the time until 12:00 p.m. equally divided. and following the use or yielding back of time, the bill be read a third time and the senate vote on passage of the bill. i ask that the senate recess following the vote until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly conference meetings. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. whitehouse: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president reserving the right to object. during the keystone debate, the energy committee chair said that

we should, and i will quote her get beyond the discussion as to whether or not -- mr. cornyn: mr. president i ask for regular order. the presiding officer: is there objection to the unanimous consent request? mr. whitehouse: i will object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. cornyn: i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. cornyn: i ask consent that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: and mr. president i would re-urge my unanimous consent request. i have conferred with the senator from rhode island, and would yield to him for purposes of asking a question. mr. whitehouse: reserving the right to object, it's not in the form of a question but as i said during the keystone debate the energy committee chair said that we should -- quote -- get beyond the discussion as to whether or not climate change is real and talk about what do we do. i will not take more time now than to say that i hope we soon do get to that question, what do we do? with that, i will not object. the presiding officer: without objection. so ordered.

mr. cornyn: mr. president if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of the senator from alabama, senator sessions, who i understand is it in route. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: thank you mr. president. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president tomorrow we will vote on whether or not to proceed to the department of homeland security appropriations bill, which fully funds the department of homeland security and includes the law enforcement priorities that were agreed to on a bipartisan basis in the house and it is indeed a clean bill. the house of representatives has voted to fully fund homeland

security as the president has requested. it is not a perfect bill. republicans and democrats and individuals on both sides have different priorities on some matters, but they came to an agreement to fund all of the department of homeland security's programs and how much they would fund it. activities and actions that are authorized however by the laws of the united states. so this bill will not deny a penny of funding. in fact, it says -- quote -- " "mr. president spend the money on enforcing and following the law. spend the money on enforcing the immigration and nationality act as passed by congress. that is the law of the united states of america. spend the money to let our law enforcement officers carry out their duties, as prescribed by

the laws." yet our democratic colleagues say they're going to block this bill that they'll all stick together and not even let it come to the floor of the united states senate. why? why would they do that? because, they say, they want to give the president the funds apparently to spend on his unconstitutional and unlawful executive being a necessary city. they will not allow the bill to even be voted on. without a vote in the senate, the funding for homeland security does not go forward. they're not going to allow it to be voted on because they want to protect the president in his assertion of an unconstitutional and illegal power to order duly constituted enforcement officers of the united states department of homeland security to carry on

an unlawful activity. the president is not entitled to spend taxpayers' dollars to complement a system of immigration -- to implement a system of immigration that congress reject rejected just last year. surely our democratic colleagues will not block the senate from proceeding to this bill to fund the department of homeland security. if they are unhappy with the house of representatives' language if they think the president wrongfully -- rightfully using legitimate powers could direct them to provide social security numbers medicare participation earned-income tax credit money from the federal government, and the right to work in the united states when the law says they're not entitled to be employed in the united states, then they can offer an amendment to the bill,

bring it up on the floor of the senate to strike that language, if they think it's so bad. of course, if you think about it, that would be a stunning event, would it not? not united states senators taking language from a bill, striking language from a bill that restores the separation of powers properly understood by the framers and prevents the president from violating law and -- in the constitution. they're going to vote against that? maybe that's why they choose not to have this bill go forward. maybe they don't want to confront the issue. i'll quote senator reid in a moment. he said we ought to confront the issue straight on. all right let's do so. i suspect senator reid, though,

and his team united apparently are not so interested in having votes and being held accountable for their votes. so our colleagues would have the right to offer amendments. senator mcconnell is allowing amendments going out of his way to allow amendments and changing the terrible state that the senate has found itself in under senator reid's leadership. and skint with the consistent with the rules of the senate, those amendments can be brought up. it is an untenable position, untenable constitutionally, untenable because it is contrary to the will of the members of the house and senate who oppose the president's action, republicans and democrats and perhaps most importantly untenable politically because

the american people strongly reject it. so why would any senator democrat or republican, when the very integ dprit of the congress is underred assault -- is urpdz -- is under assault not want to assert authority at this point? we are coequal branches of the government and the president does not have the authority to enforce a law that was never passed indeed a law that was explicitly rejected by the congress of the united states and grant amnesty to people who are unlawfully here, grant work authorizations a photoat photo i.d. allowing them to apply for any job in america, social security numbers, the right to participate in social security and medicare. that's what the president's actions are going to do.

this is not prosecutorial discretion. nowhere close to prosecutorial discretion. it is an executive fiat. it is an imperial act as the president himself said repeatedly. "i am not a king. i am not an emperor "quhtion dealingdeal -- when dealing with this very issue. then he changed his mind. he became under pressure from certain political interest groups and he couldn't get congress to vote for the bill he wanted so he just decided to do it on his own. that's an unthinkable overreach. it's a matter of great national importance. the american people were engaged in this. they were following this issue and the president couldn't get the constitutional process to give him the power that he wanted so he just did it

anyway. and why can't it be stopped i get asked that. what's the matter with you people in congress? well we had seven members on the democratic side of the aisle, still in this senate today, who said the president overreached, he shouldn't have done this, it should have been done by legislature by the congress, not by the president. and yet are all seven of team going to vote with senator reid and become part of the pall palace guard that protects the president and his unlawful act so the president can't be challenged? that's what it amounts to. there's no doubt about it. that's precisely what it amounts to. a palace guard circling around the white house to protect the president, even though members of this senate have said he overreached and what he did was

wrong. they're apparently going to continue to vote for him withoutout ofwhat party loyalty? out of loyalty to senator reid, the minority leader in the united states senate? well they say the media even saying sometimes and democrats and others are sometimes saying that there are -- that the bill contains controversial new immigration riders. therefore, it ought to be plooked. it contains unconstitutional or controversy yale new immigration riders and that's bad. that's why it ought to be blocked. what new policy is in the bill? what new expenditure is in the bill? it's not consistent with the laws of the united states.

not one -- the bill passed by the house carries out the essential functions in the normal orderly way of homeland security. it doesn't do -- doesn't add any pork doesn't add any special expenditures for some controversial project. it doesn't do any of that. so if the president said, i will deploy my border patrol officers no longer at the mexican border, where we have large flows of illegal labor. irm a going to move -- i'm going to move them up to montana or maine, where we have very few people. and, in fact, we're no longer going to enforce the border there anded even attempt to. and i'm going to reassignment. i'm the president.

they work for me. i can do such things as that. well would it be a controversial rider for the senate of the united states, for the house of representatives to say, no, wree prohibit funds to do that. we're going to fund the officers' duty at the border with our mexican neighbors where they need to be. who is create being the controversy here, is the point. who is creating the controversy? not the house of representatives. it's the president of the united states. he has over-freeched overreached without any doubt, and the situation is very grave. and what if the president of the united states were to -- if the next president does something unusual? senator cruz at the hearing for the attorney general nominee

ms. lynch, asked her what if president cornyn, who was sitting by at the time, the senator from texas were president and he didn't like certain labor laws that applied to people in texas and he told his bureaucrats who in effect work for the president of the united states, don't enforce labor laws in texas? so senator and you know what she said? she said she would have to v. view it.

she wasn't sure. it should have taken her five seconds to say of course a president can't do that, but have we gotten such a confuseed understanding of law in america that we are at that point that universal laws of labor are subject to the whim of a president of the united states and even the attorney general won't say it's wrong? and even the congress won't say no to the president on this? well the house did say no. they passed a perfectly responsible funding bill for homeland security. they said but we're not going to allow you to spend money to advocate a policy we have rejected which they can do just that way. we we don't like this action, we are not going to fund this action and the executive of this country, the president cannot act on it if he's prohibited from spending money on it.

he goes to the big core of the legislative process. it's what the american revolution was about. what had happened in england they wrested this power from the king. and we adopted it in terms of the president and put the power in congress, they had the power in parliament. big deal. so i don't think we're at a point where we need to back down on this. and it's not an overreach. and those great leaders some in homeland security, are so confident in their wisdom and policy ideas having forgotten what the rule of law is suggest that congress should just roll over and forget it and go on and let it happen and not be controversial by standing up

to it. now, look. snow senator reid and i like senator reid, we battle a lot but he's as pugnacious as this "politico" article said, but i can live with that and i'm glad he's back and i hope he recovers fully and i'm confident that he will. so he said this -- this is in "politico," i guess today mr. everett's article quoting senator reid earlier today -- quote -- "why should we be dealing with issues that have nothing to do with homeland security? nothing to do with homeland security. snob reid said. if my republican colleagues have some problems, something the president has done on immigration, for example hit it head on.

don't hide it in homeland security. well the problem is homeland security. the president has directed the officials of homeland security to take money that has been authorized and appropriated for them to enforce the immigration laws of this country and to use those funds to carry out a scheme congress has rejected. under the laws of the united states it's illegal to hire someone unlawfully in the country. there's no doubt about that. people are not entitled to partnership in social security and medicare. how could it be otherwise colleagues? how could it be otherwise? and so he told the homeland security officials to create a new office, a new building across the river in crystal

city he directed them to hire a thousand new employees 1,000 new employees to process applications under his executive amnesty, a policy that congress rejected. it's beth taking. it's going to -- breathtaking. it's going to cost tens of millions of dollars just for that one office and that begins to suggest how much money would have to be spent to execute his vision for immigration that the american people rejected. so how do you deal with it directly? how do you hit it on the head, openly and directly? well the congress has the power of the purse. no money can be spent by this president that congress hasn't authorized. and so the house discussed this they went into some

detail about it, worked at it for some time and the house decided that they would not fund this action that contradicted laws that they passed. and execute a policy they didn't agree with. i think that's confronting it right head on, there's no doubt about that, and it absolutely deals with homeland security. my goodness. so this is the kind of logic this is the kind of weak arguments that are being put forth here. well i'll just mention we're going to talk about a lot of things as we go forward with this debate, that evidences the bankruptcy of the policies that are carried out by this administration. one of the things that came out

today, one of the things that came out today and part of the president's budget was his asums that if his immigration policies are passed, you'd save lots of money for the united states treasury. why would i save money? it would save money because we would collect more social security benefits and this would create more revenue to the government and put us in a sound position to help balance the budget. not going to balance the budget not going to come close to it, but he had a substantial amount of money would come from that. colleagues we have to understand what a misrepresentation of colossal enormity is at stake in that statement. everybody knows that social security and medicare are on unsustainable financial courses, and everybody that

knows anything about medicare and social security knows that the fundamental problem is people are not putting in enough money to take care of those who retire. and so the flow is not enough. over time, it's going to get worse. we're just now beginning to go into deficit for social security. the disability portion is in critical shape it's in very bad shape. but what this calculation is based on is the next ten years. so it says we'll have more income in the next ten years and that may be so. but every person that goes on social security today and even more so in the future are under law projected to take out more than they put in plus interest.

so obviously you add five million new people to the social security rolls and no change in the amount of money that they pay in, they make the long-term strength of social security even more weak. it adds -- it digs the hole even deeper that we've got to dig our way out of. there's no other way to analyze it. just unbelievable to me that held make such -- they would make such a statement because those here in the congress need to be thinking about the long-term financial course of america, and we need to be trying to put not just short-term benefits here so congress can spend more money we need to be thinking about how to place this country on a sound long-term path. and adding more people to social security particularly lower-income people as most of these are who will draw out even

more than the higher-income people draw out as a percentage of -- on the basis of what they paid in, is not a way to save social security. investors -- investors business daily did this in a december 1 article, last year entitled "obama's amnesty will create a fiscal nightmare for entitlements." that's the title of this respected business mag's article -- magazine's, merrill matthews at the institution in dallas and the past chairman of the social insurance of

actuaries, wrote "obama's amnesty action exacerbates the problem because retirees get back far more than they pay in." that is as plain and as simple as daylight following dark. they go on to write "but millions of obama's newly legalized are working age adults with children so many to be in their 40's or older. thus they could pay fica taxes -- that's your social security taxes -- for the next say 15 or 20 years less than the average american worker and be eligible for the full array of social security and medicare benefits." this is going to be devastating to social security and medicare. it's going to hammer those programs. it's going to make it harder for us to save them, which we have an obligation to do. and there's no obligation to

give social security and medicare to persons who entered the united states unlawfully. there's just not. people are entitled to come into the country unlawfully and demand the benefits of the country, the first thing you should do to confront unlawful immigration, the first thing you should do is not to subsides it with -- subdecide it with -- sub decide it with taxpayer money. using a basic simulation model we believe the government will receive about $500 billion in payroll tax revenue including part d and drug premiums and expect it to pay out some $2 trillion in benefits over several decades. listen to that. so they pay in $500 billion but we're going to pay out $2

trillion four times as much. how does this make america more financially stable? and december 4 of last year in an article in the "atlantic" magazine entitle the cost of amnesty" senior editor david fromme wrote this, in the 2011 tax year the average earned income tax payment to a family with children with $2,905, according to the center or budget and policy priorities. the additional child tax credit works in the same way paying an average of 1 thy thousand $800 to qualified households. -- $1,800 to qualified households. earned income tax credit.

that sounds like some kind of deduction you might have, but it's not. sosons that have balanced budget been given legal status would be eligible for the earned income tax credit because they have a family presumably, that's what the president tells us these are families, and the income is at a rate that entitles them to draw earned income tax credit. but if you go to the budget of the united states of america how the congressional budget office calculates this, they don't calculate the earned income tax credit as some sort of tax deduction. they calculate it as an expenditure of the united states of america. and it absolutely is. the way it works is, your income is so low you have a family of such that you don't owe any income tax and they send you a tax and they call it an earned income tax credit, and a

tax credit is a cash payment to you. it looks something like a tax matter but it's really a direct check from the united states of america to lower-income families. so this is going to be qualifying for large numbers of the people that would be given legal status. citing the center for immigration studies mr. fromm in that article explains -- quote -- "about 14.5% of the native-born population of the united states earns little enough to qualify for the eitc. almost twice as great a portion of the total immigrant population 29.7% qualifies. but the specific immigrant groups most likely to benefit from the president's actions earn even less."

so you only have on a percentage basis twice as many in the legalized immigrant population eligible for eitc is the average native-born american would be qualifying to receive that check from the united states. mr. fromm goes on to say -- quote -- "the eitc will cost a shade over $70 billion in fiscal year 2015." that's a lot of money $70 billion. the federal highway bill is about 40, moving up to $50 billion. this is $70 billion. "the refundable portion of the tax credit will cost about $33 billion. that's $100 billion in total. together they cost ten times as much as traditional cash welfare. soon they will cost much, much more." he goes on to note -- quote -- "pointly enough, u.s. immigration law still forbids

the president to grant residency to aliens likely to become a public charge." this is real important. "the list of exceptions, however, over whemtion -- overwhelmed the real. here are the benefits not intended for income maintenance and therefore exempt, and he lists a whole lot of actions." i just would wrap up by saying the house of representatives in due time and order passed a bill that fully funds the united states. it is not and it does not contain riders and it does not contain pork spending. it may contain it but is not being complained of at this time. and it's before the united states senate. and to fund the department of

homeland security, the senate has to pass the same bill with the same expenditures to do so. and so all we have to do is fund the department of homeland security while not approving the president's desire to transmit funds in homeland security to an illegal, unlawful policy of amnesty that congress opposes and the president -- and the american people oppose. so who do we represent? since 2009, we learned today that the obama administration issued 5.5 million extra work permits, double the normal expected flow, over almost a million a year. we've understood it to be about 700,000. now we find that there's so many

more that have not been calculated in the numbers. his executive amnesty will issue five million more. since 2009, family incomes are down $4,000. there is no doubt about it, colleagues that this incredibly large flow of immigrants into america exceeds the ability of the american economy to absorb them. it's pulling down wages. it's moving people out workforce. it's making it very difficult for lawful immigrants to get jobs in america because there will always be a new group coming in willing to work for less. and it's eroding the middle class and middle-class values. so we're going to talk about this as we go forward. i really believe that this country will continue to be a nation that allows immigration. we don't dislike and hate or

demean people who want to come to america and work here, but we need to send a clear message. if you're not coming lawfully, don't come. and if you come unlawfull given amnesty. you're not going to be given social security and medicare and earned-income tax credit and the right to go to any hospital in america and demand health care. you're just not going to do that. and if we do that with clarity colleagues, what will happen? the people that are coming hiewr unlawfully will stop coming. the numbers will f dramatically and we'll be in a position then to reestablish a lawful system of immigration. the american people have pleaded with us to establish one that wook -- we can be proud of, one that's just and fair, where people can apply and wait their turn and accepted and not accepted on their merits. if we do that we will have served the american people with what they've asked us to do.

i thank the chair and would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.philip klein is commentary editor for the washington examiner. good morning. on tuesday, the house is again voting on repealing the affordable care act. the first vote in this congress, but the 60th vote since 2011. what can we expect? guest: i think we can expect it to pass. when they say 60 votes on repeal, that is somewhat misleading. a number of the repeal votes have been to undo certain aspects of the law. there has not been as many the

had been full repeal. either way, this will obviously be vetoed by president obama if it passes the senate and gets to his death. you have a lot of new members coming and who have not had a chance to vote on repealing obama care, they ran and campaign on repealing obama care . this will be their chance to vote against it. they will probably move on to other targeted types of legislation. host: the way it has been written -- not only repealing affordable care act that instructing key committee to come up with an alternative and and this new book out -- "overcoming obamacare. co." alternative for the law and move

things in a more free-market direction and the problem has been up until this point is that there are fundamental differences among republicans on what the alternative would be to obamacare. as a result of that it's been easier to not release an alternative and then and then you not unified around around repealing obamacare which ever one agrees on. however as i argue in my book short-sighted and misguided if obamacare and other health care programs are allowed to go on autopilot the government will take a larger role in the u.s. economy and eventually democrats will when they are in charge and have a opening to do so will implement more top-down centralized government-run health care systems and republicans are going to prevent that then they are going to have

to present an alternative and start making the case for it. also as quickly as the supreme court case this coming up decided by june has huge ramifications for obamacare and depending on how that's decided there could be a lot of pressure on republicans to have some sort of fix or alternative. this is the decision that could theoretically strip away federal exchange subsidies from millions of people in the thickets decided that way ran republicans don't have an alternative to present then they are going to be forced potentially into trying to sign on some so-called simple fix that would actually further entrench and sign on to obamacare. that's why i think that you see a number of things that are now

working into the realization that this may be the year to present the alternative. >> host: we want to follow-up on on the presence comments a mom. he spoke to house democrats in philadelphia but in your book you talk about key players including the new chair of the house ways & means committee paul ryan. what is he or his committee going to propose? >> guest: while it's unclear. paul ryan has in the past signed onto various alternative health care plans however that was before obamacare and obamacare has changed the playing field because now republicans have to deal with the question of what to do with the people who have some sort of benefits from obamacare regardless of the fact that there were many losers from obamacare. there are also people that are getting subsidized health insurance. so what you have among republicans is a divide among several issues issues such as

can it now be fully repealed? does dasani sort of replacement of obamacare have to somehow account for the beneficiaries whether it's some sort of transitionary relief or is there another way to subsidize people to purchase health insurance? another big question is what budget baseline to use. this gets a little wonky but as you know in washington we have a way that the congressional budget office evaluates proposals against the baseline of what taxes and spending would look like if those proposals were not implemented. now that obamacare is in the books the question for republicans who have opposed all of the taxes and spending them out is whether they wipe it all off the books and start from scratch or if they work against the baseline that assumes

obamacare taxes extended because if they do that they could have some sort of alternative that still spends money and raises money in taxes and whatever can be seen as a tax cut in spending reduction relative to obamacare. on that point paul ryan when i spoke to him a few months ago said that he thinks that all the spending taxes should be wiped off the books. he sticks by that and that will assess what type of alternative you can produce. >> host: responding to what the president said this past week in philadelphia. >> the bottom line is this. we have got to make sure continues to work. we should protect the progress we are making. i hear republicans are holding their 50th or 60th move to appeal or repeal the affordable care act. i've lost count at this point. if that bill ever reads my desk i would happily veto it.

>> host: another veto threat by the president. you can sense the frustration in his voice. >> guest: yeah i think a look at this is part of the strategy and has to be part of the strategy for republicans looking towards 2016 which is that republicans have to say what they are for and this is why i think it's important, another reason why it's important to advance an alternative. what republicans have to do if you look back at democrats as an example when they took over the house and senate in 2006 and then bush still controlled everything what they did as they passed a lot of pieces of legislation that were popular and they made the case for them very bush vetoed them but then when hillary clinton and obama and all the democrats run the campaign trail they were able to say if you elect a democrat president then we will be able to sign these pieces of

legislation and republicans need to do that. that is what they are doing with the keystone pipeline. i think that they should do it with a number of other issues and i think they should do it within obamacare alternative. you have to show people that you are not just there to oppose obamacare but actually you have an idea to make the health care system better by giving them more choice and republican sort of talked about that a lot but they happened had to say people don't think, there's a recent kaiser poll that came out that says the majority of people don't think they have an alternative care and health care. they need to change that and if obama vetoes that you take the fight to 2016. >> the white house submitted its proposed 4 trillion-dollar budget for 2016 to congress. 50 billion of those billion of those dollars are going to state

department u.s. agency for international development. including $7 billion for overseas operations to combat isis. >> good afternoon everyone. as you know earlier today president obama released his fiscal year 2016 budget and i'm pleased to be joined here today by administrator raj shah to discuss the 2016 budget request for usaid department to take a few of your questions. i just want to note this is russia's last budget rollout. i'm sure you known a couple of weeks he will be moving on and i wanted to briefly take this opportunity to thank him for his service. he has been a really effective and dynamic leader to usaid. he is pushed forward innovative efforts like see the future and

empower africa. his response to on expected responses and we are really going to miss you. president obama said if there's one thing the new century has taught us is that we cannot separate her work at home from the challenges beyond our shores. that fact was deeply understood by secretary kerry in the men and women of state and usaid. we see it in action every day and our fy16 budget request makes critical investments in diplomacy and development that will secure peace and stability for the american people strength in the u.s. economy and global markets and supports u.s. citizens and our diplomatic and presence overseas. the state and usaid budget request totals $50.3 billion which is roughly 1% of the federal budget. our base budget request is $43.2 billion. this will allow us to address

ongoing and emerging national security challenges carry out our global diplomatic and development mission, dance and present signature policy and development initiatives, on our security commitments to allies and partners and carry out conflict prevention nonproliferation and peacekeeping activities around the world. we have also requested $7 billion in overseas contingency operations funds to respond to immediate and extraordinary national security requirements. oh funds will support critical programs and operations in afghanistan, pakistan and iraq as well as exceptional costs related to our efforts -- ever supplied by soul response to the competence area and support ukraine. let me just highlight a few of the canvas and we are making over the next year. our budget invests $1 billion in central america. these funds will address the underlying social governance and economic factors in central

america that drove last year's crisis in unaccompanied migration, child migration while helping mexico secured southern part of her goal is to partner with their neighbors in central america to mitigate these underlying factors before their youth risk a dangerous journey north and arrive at our border. for afghanistan or request includes $1.5 billion in assistance which will support the afghan unity government as it strives to implement key reforms, improve its economy and work with us on shared security issues. our budget request also provides $963 million to secure and support embassy operations, including $125 million dujardin embassy capitol all of which will enable a significant reduction in our military presence. with any reform minded afghan government in place we have the opportunity to solidify the progress we have made in afghanistan over the last decade. our quest continues the

security, economic and civilian programs necessary to do so. as part of demonstrations collaboration with coalition partners to degrade and ultimately destroy isil are request includes $3.5 billion to strengthen regional partners, provide humanitarian assistance and strengthen serious moderate opposition to advance the conditions for a negotiated political transition. their request also includes an additional $1.1 billion to support diplomatic engagement with iraq to sustain our strategic partnership. last year was point president obama announced the creation of a counterterrorism partnership fund that will enable us to train build capacity and help facilitate partner countries on the frontlines against terrorism. our request includes $399 to support the ctp have good security and stabilization assistance in efforts to counter violent extremism and terrorists ideology. our budget also includes vital support for ukraine to counter russian pressure and aggressive actions. this includes $275 million to

support an additional loan guarantee of up to $1 billion if ukraine can continues to make progress on its imf program and other conditions one other conditions one. a request also provide support for democracy and anticorruption measures european integration energy security and public diplomacy strategies to counter russian propaganda throughout europe and central asia. the request also provides over $5 billion for international organizations and peacekeeping efforts. these funds strengthen our strategic relationships across the globe and enable us to advance global security while sharing the burden with other nations. rss contributions aboard 17 u.n. peacekeeping missions in africa and the middle east and satisfy u.s. obligations to the u.n. and 44 other organizations. at the same time our request will address urgent and growing humanitarian needs around the world. we are now facing for

large-scale crises in syria south sudan the central african republic and iraq. to address this unprecedented challenge we are seeking a total of $5.6 billion in humanitarian funding. shifting gears a bit where investing over $800 million in clean energy, sustainable landscapes and adaptation to the global climate change initiative. this includes $350 million of a state department contribution to the green climate fund a no multilateral fund that will help developing countries gain access to public and private finance, to invest in reducing carbon pollution and strengthening resilience to climate change. secretary kerry firmly believes that our people the state department and usaid personnel our greatest resource in this budget make significant investments in the people and platforms to make all of this work possible. the budget includes $6.9 billion to support state and usaid personnel and operations around the world.

these funds sustain our relations with foreign governments and international organizations to work right development experts here in washington and abroad and vital overseas services to u.s. citizens and businesses. in order for diplomats and development professionals to do their work they must be safe and secure. secretary kerry is committed to doing whatever it takes to ensure that they are. i request includes $4.8 billion for worldwide security protection to support key security requirements such as protection of diplomatic personnel and knew of the structures such as the foreign affairs security training center center. within the embassy security construction and maintenance account the budget includes $1.4 billion for worldwide security upgrades which include support for the capitol security and maintenance cost-sharing programs and construction maintenance and security upgrades were diplomatic facilities as recommended by the benghazi accountability review board. the fact remains that american leadership is needed now more than ever but our global

leadership and our leverage depends on our resources. our budget request reflects what is needed to enter the united states remains powerfully engaged on it the myriad issues that directly impact the security prosperity and values of the american people. we look forward to working with congress to secure funding for these important priorities in the coming months and with that i will turn it over to to rise to about our developmental assistance requests. >> thank you. good afternoon and thank you heather. i appreciate your kind comments and your incredible leadership on behalf of ensuring that state and a.i.d. have the resources required to carry forth president obama and secretary kerry's strong commitment to american leadership around the world. heather likes to point out that she's right that most americans think our collective budget is greater than 20% of the federal budget and in fact it's somewhat smaller than that clocking in at just under 1%. i would also like to thank the leadership of president obama

and secretary kerry and bipartisan members democrats and republicans in both houses in congress that have relatively strongly supported usaid and our country's development and humanitarian missions around the world. in fact 2015 is an important year for our collective partnerships to address extreme poverty and promote resilient democratic societies often the most difficult parts of our world. but no matter where we work across the globe the men and women of the state department usaid work on behalf of the american people. and the modesty of critical investments we make in improving the quality of life for the world's most fortunate in fact contribute directly to american strength, security, trade and prosperity. and above all over the last two years we have refocused our investments to make sure we are pooling our work in a way where

over time our aid and assistance is no longer necessary where self-sufficiency can replace the need for outside assistance. the president's budget request this year includes $22.3 billion that usaid will manager probably manage. these critical resources allow us to advance our country's interest in a far ranging set of contacts. by leveraging public-private partnerships and harnessing the power of technology, science and innovation we are now able to deliver clear and focused and measurable results with these resources. since 2010 usaid missions have reduced the number of programs and program areas in which we have worked from nearly 800 in total around the world to just over 500 today for a reduction of greater than 35%. this is meant that our global health program for example has been phased out of 23 countries. our agriculture support programs

have been phased out of 25 countries. and as a result we are able to deliver better resources where we concentrate our investments in our efforts. today all of our major programs are independently evaluated by third-party evaluators and the results of those evaluations which are often important about the most exciting documents to read are available on an iphone app an unprecedented level of transparency. when i started five years ago just a presented usaid's global investment focused on public-private partnerships. today it's about 40% and the 2016 budget request will take that number to 46%. nowhere has this focused on delivering measurable results been more significant than our work in global health. the foreign assistance budget includes a $.2 billion for funding for global health including hiv aids malaria child and maternal survival in a broad

range of programs that tackle neglected tropical diseases including ebola. these resources underscore our commitment to helping to realize the goal of ensuring that every child survives until the age of five and thrives beyond that timeframe. to achieve this goal we have already narrowed our focus of investment in our child's survival program to 24 for countries that account for 70% of under five child deaths and were maternal deaths. as a result of the past two years alone in those countries we have delivered an 8% reduction in child mortality more than doubling baseline rate of reduction in child deaths. we saw the power of this approach at work last week as the united states committed more than $1 billion over four years to global alliance for vaccines and immunization in order to immunize 300 million children and save at least 5 million child lives by 2020.

another notable example of this new model is president obama's commitment to africa and specifically power africa. this year's budget includes $134 million in resources to take that initiative forward and is president obama receptacle for that initiative this past summer and is building at the african leadership summit those resources will help us bring tens of billions of dollars of private investment to the african power sector in the hope of connecting 60 million homes and businesses to clean renewable affordable power. this budget request includes $1.02 billion devoted to defeat the future initiative, president obama signature global food security effort. the state managed portion of that will be $978 million. in 2013 alone these investments in addition to bringing more than 70 companies to go invest with us in countries around the

world has directly helped more than 7 million farm households move out of poverty and improve nutrition for more than 12 million children who otherwise would go hungry not by giving out food but by helping families stand on their own 2 feet. since 2014 the president's budget has included attempts to ensure that we reach more hungry people particularly at their greatest hour of need by restructuring america's 60-year-old food assistance program, food for peace. we look forward to working with congress to get that done on a bipartisan basis this year. in doing so we hope to renew the unique policy partnership between america's food producers, shippers, humanitarians in the world's children who suffer through crisis. and this is important is here because smart results oriented humanitarian assistance is needed now more than ever. last year was the first time in

our agency's 53 year history that we were called to respond simultaneously to for large-scale emergencies around the world not including the ebola epidemic. in syria we have supported more than 300 field hospitals clinics and medical points that have saved countless lives. the philippines we have reached nearly 3 million people with emergency assistance in the wake of typhoons. in west africa we have cut down dramatically on the number of new cases of ebola for more than 100 today in liberia when our efforts started to less than one per day over the course of the last week in liberia. using the $2.5 billion appropriated to state in a grid app with 15 in a for the fy15 a bowl of response and preparedness fund the budget presented a request -- includes resources for usaid's global health security program to work alongside a range of countries to make sure that threats like ebola did not emerge again.

but even as we respond to these crises we know it's critical to support civil society and human rights around the world. that's why this budget will provide $2.4 billion for democracy human rights and governance programs some of which heather has already spoken about. and in addition this budget will include nearly $200 million in central funding for science technology and innovation to the u.s. global development lab lab. the lab has already delivered extraordinary results most notably redesigning the personal protective equipment that ebola responders use in west africa to keep themselves safe building data systems to help us tackle ebola cheaper faster and more effectively than anyone thought possible in those types of results can be replicated across a broad range of what we do if congress continues to provide strong bipartisan support for the united states global development lab. finally and outgoing heather's comments with $1.7 billion in

usaid administrative expenses this budget allows us to invest in our most important resource our staff. this request represents just 7% of our total programmatic responsibilities and we urge congress to fully fund our operating expenses. thank you for your time and attention. i look forward to taking questions. >> okay we have time for a few questions. >> the figures you provide don't match up with the figures that are put out by the cbo at least in the historical page. according to the cbo the historical page in 2015 the total budget authority for function 150 was $62.12 billion this year it's 46.476 billion which would be a reduction of 25%. and i'm wondering what's getting cut in this budget.

>> so we will let her budget experts go through the tables with you but our request overall for state in aid and accounts include treasury and some others that have international affairs activities as a 6% increase over fy15 requests. i can't speak to the specifics but will make sure you get an answer right after this. >> off the top of your head in terms of highlights of things that are being cut what are they? >> overall the budget request is increasing. >> so nothing is being cut? >> fare cuts here and there the budget that the numbers are going up. for example even though we maintain a robust investment in our pakistan assistance that has come down by a small amount, 10% over last year based on what we think the needs are and what we assess the capabilities are. we have a level funding for iraq at this point. we have level funding levels in

many programs and increases where we think we need them. so we can get the specifics of where are the cuts in the walk through the table with uv light. >> to similar questions. if i may the cpj summary tables have blanks for just about all the fy2015 estimates. i'm guessing that is because of the cromnibus and you haven't had time to crunch the numbers. >> the issue with specific allegations for programs of the country level there's a process after the appropriation we work through through regular order with their appropriators to decide the allocations and that level of detail. >> and will they not get that break down and when to expect to to have that break down available? or because it depends on congress. >> i would say in the spring. that's when the process takes quite a while to go back and forth on the programming.

c and then i have to crane your questions you may not be able to answer. so i notice the economic support funds for egypt are budgeted at 150 million for fy2016. it's a blank for fy2015 because you don't have that yet and it was 200 million in fy2014 the actual. you know for many years it was 250 or 255 million i think. what explains the decision to ask for less for fy2016 then you had in 2014? do you believe the egyptian government is just not making progress and you don't want to support them? >> it's a good question. we do know from our engagement with congress over the appropriation and her discussions with them that they intend the level to be 150 million so in working with them in this request thinking about where we can go moving forward on egypt we settled on that level.

>> icu have i met funding for thailand but of course thailand had a coup and i wonder why you are programming i met funding for thailand for fy16 given the coup? >> we will have to get back to you on that one. >> okay. >> i would like to ask highlights on western hemisphere. i've heard that the 1 billion for central america but i would like more details. for instance merida initiative about 1 billion includes part of the merida initiative? >> the $1 billion for central america. >> member mexico? >> the central america response to the child migration we have included $120 million specifically for mexico. our funding levels are pretty consistent with last year with

the exception of the central american region. >> could you please talk about the merida initiative and plan columbia? >> columbia is about the same level. ours is an increased capacity. i don't have the merida numbers with me. i'm sorry. >> how about the human rights program for cuba? any change? >> the cuba funding is similar to last year. $20 million in democracy planning for cuba. the only difference in our funding request vis-à-vis cuba is that we asked for $6.6 million to do some operational upgrades at our facility there. >> on venezuela's democracy program for venezuela? >> i don't have the numbers that we can follow up with you. >> please, yes. thanks. >> i thought you asked for more money for columbia to this administration. as a slight increase, not a decrease.

>> i'm pretty sure there's a slight decrease in columbia but we will make sure you have the right numbers. >> could you focus a little more on the priorities for asia please? i didn't see any on asia. >> i'm glad you raised a that question. we have an increased of a% for the asian regions vis-à-vis fy14 appropriations. as a measure regarding 15 is still relevant and they can't compare to 15 without the allocations that were going through with congress. we propose an 8% increase. >> just a follow-up on that could you talk about why as the pivot is a priority of this administration why asia-pacific is not mentioned in your fact sheet and highlights? >> well when you look at the budget overall and what we have prioritized increases for and

where we have had to keep things level and some of the places we have had to cut its clear the asia-pacific remains a key priority because of the level of increase. we can speak to the specifics of the fact sheet but the numbers tell the story. that's a trajectory that has increased increased in our budget consistently. >> specifically where it is a% to? >> all the details are in the congressional congressional justification on our web site in a call you will have afterwards they can get into that level of detail with you. >> and you get into a bit more detail about the $3.5 billion for anti-isil/isis operations? >> the number includes the work we are doing to counter isil with iraq and their partners to do with the serious humanitarian crisis and stabilize that region region. so there is security assistance training etc. humanitarian cause lebanon jordan and other partners that region that are

taken a lot of responsibility for the crisis there. >> we have time for a couple more. in the back. >> can you tell us what is the budget request for afghanistan and pakistan and how much that will go to security and economic assistance? >> good question. i'm flipping here sorry. the afghanistan request is $1.5 billion persistent as i said in the opening and i have the breakdown here. 1.2 million is insecurity and the rest come excuse me 1.2 billion insecurity and the rest is in civilian assistance. so the total amount of their quest for afghanistan is $2.5 billion. >> that include their operations and our platform. so 1.5 is the number for assistance.

for pakistan the assistance number is 804 million. there is 534 million in civilian and 270 million insecurity. >> okay. thanks very much everyone. [inaudible conversations] >> host: nancy joins us. she's a reporter with bloomberg and nancy lets take a look at homeland security spending.

president obama releasing his budget proposal for 2016. congress is still working on 2015. why is that? >> guest: last december when the bills had been negotiated by the house and senate appropriators there was resistance from some part of the house republican conference to include in the homeland security bill and the honor this package. some of the critics of president obama's immigration policies thought by holding back, and security or temporarily funding the agency with acr they could get leverage over the president when they had control of both chambers in the chamber in the near and revisit some of the immigration funding and policies. right now we are looking at only another three weeks before the department of homeland security spending lapses in the question is whether we do that till now are whether we look at another cr. >> host: some of those immigration provisions that are

holding things up. >> guest: the primary things that drew the president's veto threat against the hamas security bill that passed the house in january deal with preventing him from having money to implement his november executive order which would have shielded millions of illegal immigrants from deportation and the house republicans also have another provision that would have gone back a little bit further a couple of years back and try tried to keep the president from pursuing his policy that protects younger people from staying in this country. there are young people who came here as babies or children and grew up in this country and now would like to stay here, go to work, go to college for the so-called trimmers but they haven't been given the ability to permanently stay in this country so the president tried to shield them from deportation

and now house republicans would also like to stop that policy. >> host: 44 democrats and 44 in the senate and to independents sent a letter to the majority leader senator mcconnell to have the senate take up the queen spending bill for homeland security. what kind of impact do you think that it will take tuesday to move forward with this might have? >> guest: you are going to see how unified the democrats are and how unified the republicans are great at this point the democrats say they are going to hold together and keep mcconnell from getting 60 votes that he would need to get onto the bill and start debate. i think for now republicans are going to be unified too even though there is the perception there a number of republicans that really don't like the house amendment to the hamas security bill and would like a simple funding bill that would protect,

and security in the fiscal year. i don't think we are going to see an outcome tomorrow. tomorrow i think it's going to be a stalemate for a few days, maybe even longer. >> host: nancy what you think will happen if it fails to get 60 votes to move forward? what options does the majority leader have? >> guest: well he can talk talk with this conference as well as house republicans about the next step and start discussing possible areas of compromise. the same thing for democrats by the current time both sides are taking a hard stance. the democrats and white house are saying it's nothing but a clean bill for them and president obama again repeated his call for that today in the department of homeland security where he went to announce his budget. democrats said he didn't choose the department of homeland

security by accident. mcconnell has to do a lot of talking republicans. there a lot of them that like the house bill including jeff sessions. i think it's going to take a while from o'connell to get his members behind one strategy. >> host: nancy ognanovich reports for bloomberg and you can find her articles at our web site bna.com. thanks for the insight. >> guest: thank you. >> we believe at the end of the day the internet needs strong enforceable rules for users and developers on the web. disney to include management and

they need to be effectively enforceable. >> the problem you have now with where the net neutrality issue has gone is they are not focused on the substance of the rules which has rules which as i say i think there is a lot of consensus around. it's focused on the fcc legal authority to adopt rules and what jurisdictional. they should use and are concerned really is there going to undo potentially a regulatory status that has existed now for over a decade. earlier this month -- was sworn into office as nebraska's 40th governor pretty said his number one priority is reducing taxes. from the state state capitol in lincoln nebraska this is a little over 10 minutes.

do you beat ricketts solemnly swear that you will support the constitution of the united states, the constitution of the state of nebraska and he will faithfully discharge the duties of governor to the best of your abilities so please answer i so swear or i so affirm. >> i so swear. [applause] [applause] [applause]

>> state senators officers and distinguished guests i present you with inaugural address the governor of the great state of nebraska governor pete ricketts. [applause] c thank you very much. [applause] thank you all very much. [applause] before we get started here today i would like to take a moment. a friend and colleague of many folks in this building passed away this morning. i want to express my heartfelt sympathy to the family and ask you all to keep chris and his family and your prayers at this time and please join me in a

moment of silence. president foley speaker hastert chief justice members of the legislature, distinguished guests family congratulations on beginning the 104th nebraska legislature. i am humbled and honored to serve as your 40th governor of the great state of nebraska. [applause] will come the new members and my fellow constitutional officers. i look forward to working with each and every one of you.

today, as is with all inauguration days is a time of new beginnings in the state of nebraska. as i look forward into the future i'm optimistic about the road that lies ahead. we have a great state filled with opportunity. it's also a time for taking stock. we just turn the calendar to 2015 and a little over two years we will celebrate the 150th anniversary of our statehood. our rich history is deeply-rooted in freedom opportunity, liberty and hope the hope for a better life for future generations. a few years before statehood in 1862 the homestead act signed into law by president abraham

lincoln who also by the way made the of the crossroads of the great transcontinental road. the first homesteaders were citizens immigrants and freed slaves. they travel for hundreds of miles to nebraska by foot, wagon train or railroad searching for a better life. one of the first homesteaders daniel friedman was one of the patriots who was awarded the special incentive for serving in the union army. he claimed land -- another veteran robert anderson was a former slave who earned his freedom in the union army and in 1870 he became the first freed african-american homesteader.

as we gather here today in lincoln r. capital state named for one of her greatest american presidents who helps shape the destiny of our great state we continue to welcome people who value freedom and to search for a better life. we welcome people from all around the world who have come to study at our great universities are working our businesses are on our farms and ranches. and as our forefathers did a century and a half ago we continue to honor the veterans, the men and women who have sacrificed and served our country. [applause] [applause] we have a great state, a beautiful state filled with opportunities. the missouri river to the sandhills to the pine ridge.

nebraska is what america is supposed to be. [applause] and the strength of our state lies within our people. nebraskans are engaging their community their schools and their churches and when we have problems we find a way to work together to solve those common problems despite our differences differences. our continued success here in the state will depend upon our ability to pull together to solve problems and grow nebraska. i am excited about the opportunities to work in a collaborative spirit to move this great state forward. to build those futures are

nebraska families. we need to work towards four goals. the first we must strengthen the economy and create jobs. these priorities go hand-in-hand. we must create more and better paying jobs for our kids and our grandkids track kids from across the country. we must put in place the 21st century infrastructure and progrowth policies that will foster investment by businesses and productivity on our farms and ranches. however there's a barrier for creating jobs in our state and as nebraska's high taxes. we must cut taxes. [applause] whether you are a homeowner, a

farmer or rancher or a business owner everyone bears the burden of high taxes. nebraskans from alliance to syracuse have expressed their strong interest in a pathway to property tax relief and that will be my number one priority this session. [applause] at the same time we must act responsibly. it is our constitutional duty to balance the budget while funding the priorities that the people of nebraska care about most. next, we must reduce regulation. whether you are a livestock producer and rich ford or a manufacture nebraska businesses face onerous overregulation. as governor i will stand up to

the egregious overregulation forced on us from washington. [applause] at the state level i will work to ensure that a regulatory process is fair and transparent and more efficient. in addition we must strengthen education. we must ensure our young people have the tools they need in a 21st century global economy and i want to focus on career and vocational training. every manufacturer spoke with has told me they cannot find enough skilled labor and expanding here in the state and these are wonderful careers. in the coming weeks i will

continue to meet with members of the legislature to build relationships that we can grow nebraska. as we work together you will have other ideas on how we will achieve these goals. you make your other concerns from your constituents. i promise i will listen closely and with an open mind. the people of nebraska expect government to work. they hold us to high standards. i will work each and every day to meet those standards and safeguard the public trusts. and to nebraskans everywhere i encourage you stay involved stay engaged. you are the second house. hold us accountable for the results we achieve that help us grow the state. in the words of virginia senate the only woman to ever serve nebraska in the u.s. house of

representatives there is no excellence without labor. on behalf of my wife suzanne and our entire family thank you very much and god bless the people of this great state. [applause] [applause] [applause] ..

and now on your screen the entrance hall to the las vegas convention center. home of the annual trade show for consumer technology. this is the largest trade though in the world and we are on location. this week, we will look at the new technologies that are coming out. from ces international and talk to policymakers as well. this is the "the communicators" on c-span from las vegas. and from the cens