anything that the environmental protection agency decides is a tributary, and your property has a natural pond or some standing water after heavy rain. let's say a bird that spends part of its life on the croment river decides -- on the colorado river decides to hang out on that natural pond on standing water that occurred after the rain under this new regulation the environmental protection agency now has the power to regulate what you do on that land. it's bad enough that this administration has taken this extraordinary step. it's bad enough that it's tried to sneak out its rule, hoping that nobody was paying attention over the memorial day time at home. there are now reports that the obama administration may have broken the law. here's what "the new york times" reported on may 18 under the headline front page -- front page of "the new york times" --

"critics hear e.p.a.'s voice in public comments. e.p.a.'s voice in public comments." this is an acialtion article pronts front page "new york times," that about the comments that they have to collect when they propose new regulations, like this one they've done with waters of the u.s. the comment period is supposed to be an opportunity for people who might be harmed by the rules to have their say. well according to this front-page article in "the new york times," the environmental protection agency has twisted the public comment requirements into its own private government-funded spin machine. the article says, "in a campaign that tests the limits, that tests the limits of federal lobbying law the agency has orchestrated a drive to counter political opposition from republicans and enlist public

support in concert with liberal environmental groups and a grass-roots organization aligned with president obama." tests the limits of federal lobbying law. this government agency ignored ignored the negative comments by americans who were concerned about the law, who were hurt by the law. then it used taxpayer dollars to lobby liberal groups to flood the agency with positive comments. that's not me. that's what's written in "the new york times." "these were the same, phony ginned up comments it used to justify the dramatic overreach of its new regulations. its incredible. it's unacceptable," and i believe it is illegal. the environmental protection agency would rather skew public comments in its favor than acknowledge the real concerns that americans and members of congress have with this destructive rule. these are the concerns of

farmers, of ranchers, of hardworking families, small businesses all across the country. there was an interesting column in the "u.s. news & world report" last friday. the headline was "stop terrorizing main street." the column talked about the damage that all this red tape can do small businesses. it says "when the e.p.a. jumps up and yells boo well, entrepreneurs cringe, they withdraw they feel anxious they reconsider the plans they may have to start or expand a business. this is bad for our economy. this is hurting our country." well, i believe that they're exactly right. that's what washington does with the uncertainty and the overreach of rules like this one. it's bad for the economy. it does nothing to improve the quality of our water or the quality of life. there is universal agreement in this country that we should protect america's navigable

waters. there is also bipartisan agreement on the best ways for washington to help do that. this isn't just republicans against president obama. this is republicans and democrats working to protect america's waterways and president obama working instead to expand the power of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats. here's how the newspaper "the hill" reported it last thursday with an article headlined "democrats buck obama on water rule." the article says request dozens of congressional democrats are joining republicans to back legislation blocking the obama administration's new rule to re-define its jurisdiction over the nation's waterways." i'm talking about -- it's talking about my bill, a bill called the federal water quality protection act. the bill has 30 cosponsors in the senate, democrats and republicans alike. a similar bill in the house

actually passed with the support of 24 democrats and every republican. so what does the administration have to say to the dozens of democrats in congress, the 24 democrats who voted against the administration to the millions of americans who are concerned about this new regulation? well according to the article in "the hill," president obama's top environment advisor said -- this is of the democrats who voted for this -- "the only people with reason to oppose the rule are polluters." so the president believes that the 24 democrats that voted to support and the democrats in the senate who voted to cosponsor my legislation are polluters who want to threaten our clean water. that's what the white house thinks of these democrats in congress. that's what the white house thinks of anyone -- anyone -- who dares to suggest that this rule is bureaucratic overreach. such arrogance. well, there are a lot of americans, democrats and

republicans, who are not going to be intim decorated intimidated by the obama administration's power grab or its name-calling. the obama administration has ignored the strong bipartisan consensus against this rule and it's once again taken its own radical approach. instead of moving forward with a rule that fails to represent the interests of many americans, we should act immediately to pass this bipartisan federal water quality protection act. this legislation says "yes" to clean water and "no" to extreme bureaucracy. who will protect america's waterways while keeping washington's hands off of the things that it really has no business regulating. the environmental protection agency would have to consult with the states to make sure that we've got the approach that works best every with not just the approach that washington likes best. they would not be able to just listen to the echo chamber of phony comments concocted by

their own lobbying campaign. now, this bill gives certainty and clarity to farmers to hardworking ranchers, to small business owners and their families. it makes sure that people can continue to enjoy the beautiful rivers and the lakes that should be preserved and protected. this bipartisan bill protects americans from runaway bureaucracy, unaccountable unelected. it restores washington's attention to the traditional waters that were always the focus before. the american people don't need more bureaucratic overreach. we don't need more red tape. congress should act immediately to stop this outrageous regulation before it goes into effect. the senate should take up and pass this bipartisan federal water quality protection act. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor.

mr. daines: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. daines: mr. president i often hear from montanans how washington d.c., regulations stifle the ability to create jobs and prevent our small businesses from reaching their full potential. too many montana businesses face regulatory burdens that hinder innovation and block opportunities for growth. in fact, when i drive around montana, i've yet to hear a small business owner stop me and say,ings you know, we'd like to see nor regulation -- see more regulation from washington d.c. small businesses either struggle to keep up with frequent regulatory chaiption or suffer the penalty -- changes or suffer the penalty of regulatory fines. that is unacceptable.

there's something fundamentally wrong when our business owners spend more time adapting to washington regulations than focusing on their businesses' growth and their job creation. we need to real estate duce the red tape that is holding our small businesses back and work towards scwnstowardstowards commonsense regulations that don't place unnecessary burden on montana families and small businesses. today i've introduced legislation to help fix the regulatory burden facing americans. my bill facilitates public input on federal rule making and provides a more predictable regulatory environment so that businesses can make plans to expand and have a predictable environment to create good, high-paying jobs because currently bureaucrats in washington d.c., can issue interpretative rules without warning and without public input. in fact, oftentimes

interpretative rules are dramatically changed at the whim of the presidents. i'd also like to thank senators lankford and blunt for joining me in introducing in critical piece of legislation. the regulatory predictability for business growth act will ensure that americans' voices are heard in the rule-making process, providing a crucial planning period for individuals and businesses. i want to give a special thanks to senator lankford and his staff for his leadership on the homeland security and governmental affairs committee regulatory affairs subcommittee. our staffs work closely to make this piece of legislation possible today. for far too long, government bureaucracy has stifled our small businesses' potential and with common sense reforms -- and with commonsense reforms like this bill, we can encourage both

innovation and job growth. the regulatory predictability for growth act will decrease regulatory uncertainty and empower montanans and their businesses to grow again p. thank you and i yield back. mr. president, i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the assistant democratic leader. mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: and consent to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: the senate is in a period of morning business. mr. durbin: mr. president, it was three years ago this month in june of 2012 that president obama established the deferred action for childhood arrivals, known as daca.

that provides temporary -- underline the word "temporary" -- legal status to immigrant students who arrived in the united states as children. daca is based on the dream act a bill that i introduced 14 years ago to give undocumented students who grew up in this country a chance to earn their citizenship. these young people have come to be known as dreamers, and this has become a term of art that is used now across the united states to capsulize the immigration dilemma which we face. while this daca program by president obama has been an amazing success, more than 600,000 of these dreamers have come forward paid the filing fee, submitted themselves for background checks, and are now temporarily living in america going to school and working. daca has allowed these dreamers to become part of our country as they strive for educations in

engineering, education business just about every profession you can think of. this policy of giving these young people a chance to be part of america's future, unfortunately infuriates my republican colleagues. they have tried over and over and over again to stop the dreamers, to deport the dreamers. i don't understand it. president obama established this new program to build on daca's success called dapa, which allows their parents under certain circumstances to stay in the united states on a temporary basis. under the president's second program, dapa, undocumented immigrants who lived in the united states at least five years and have american children are required to come forward pay a filing fee register with the government, pass a criminal and national security background check, and then pay their fair

share of taxes. those are the conditions. if they violate any of them, they're subject to deportation. if the government determines that these parents have not committed any serious crimes, don't pose any threat to our safety this new executive order says on a temporary basis they won't be targeted for deportation. mr. president, i've seen this in chicago and i've seen it around illinois. many people think that the undocumented live in a household full of undocumented people. that's almost never the case. what i found over and over again is that perhaps one parent, usually the mother, is undocumented. father, a citizen. kids born in america; citizens. the mother undocumented. are we really safer as a nation to break up that family and deport the mother if she's no threat to this country? i don't think so. dapa was scheduled to go into

effect last month. that's what president obama had hoped for and i joined him. but it didn't. why? because some republican governors and attorneys general have filed a lawsuit to block this new program. the supreme court has been clear that the president has the authority to set federal immigration enforcement priorities. i'm confident that ultimately the president's decision on this matter will be upheld. it is hard for me to understand or explain why the republicans are so determined to stop any reform of our broken immigration system. for years republicans in congress have refused to even consider legislation to fix our broken immigration system. i spent a good part of my life, six months or more, working in a bipartisan group to write an immigration reform bill -- four democrats, four republicans. we brought it to the floor of the senate. it passed with 68 votes 14 republicans, virtually all the democrats voted for it.

it really addressed every aspect of immigration. parts of it i didn't like, but overall it was a very good and balanced bill. when it came to the floor the republicans said wait a minute, no immigration reform until you get tough with the border. well the record says and shows we're already pretty tough at the border. illegal immigration is down dramatically. but in an effort to make this bipartisan, we agreed to even more enforcement at the border. think about this for a second. today there are more federal law enforcement agents on our border with mexico than the combined total of all federal law enforcement agencies and every other agency. and we increased it in this comprehensive immigration bill. so the argument we're not getting tough at the border, kind of hard to make. we passed the bill, 68 votes. we sent it to the house two years ago. what did the house do? absolutely nothing. they refused to call the bill.

they refused to call any version of the bill. they refused to call their own bill. they refused to even debate the issue of immigration. everybody acknowledges our immigration system needs to be improved and changed. they wouldn't even take up the issue. and now when the president tries on a temporary basis to say, i am a he not tbg to deport -- i'm not going to deport the mother in a family where everyone sells a american subsidy or i'm not going to dough port children who were brought here at the age of two, who've grown up in america simply want to be a part of our future the republicans have said we'll fight to you the death. we'll challenge you in every court in the land. we want to deport these people. what i found is it's best for members of congress, the senate and the american public to meet some of the individuals who are the target of these high emotions and negative feelings ogee the republican side. i want to introduce one of them

to you today. this is john yanik deyef. when he was years old his father a diplomat from the african country of seine senegal. his parents separated and his father returned to senegal leaving him and the rest of his family behind. yanik was too young it even realize it at that time. he was just a little kid. but when his father left the united states, he lost his legal status to live in this country. he grew up in montgomery county, maryland. in high school he was a member of the national honor society. he volunteered weekly at a homeless shelter. he organized soccer tournaments for three years to raise money for the red cross forbe haitian earthquake relief. after high school, he wanted to continue his education but remember if you're undocumented in this kurntion you don't qualify for a penny when it

comes to federal assistance. no pell grants, no federal government loans. so he went to montgomery college, junior college earned an associate's degree in business. he was on the dean's list. he then transferred to the university of maryland, clj park and again had to pay for it awvment there was no government assistance since he's undocumented. he's working now on a batch bachelor's degree in business management. he runs an after-school program to advise middle and high 1k508 -- and high school students on how to get into college. he's also a volunteer for an organization for undocumented students. he was a leader of the campaign to pass the maryland dream act which allows maryland residents who are undocumented to pay in-state tuition. that's the only break he can get and it comes from the state. keep in mind, yanik is undocumented. so he doesn't qualify for any financial aid from the federal government.

yet he's trying to make a life. here is what he said in a letter. "daca means dignity. more than making money having a job gives you dignity and self-respect. i want to work for what i have. i don't look to anyone for pity. people should judge me based on what i do and what i stand for not based on my immigration status. i want to be give an chance to prove that not only am i a functioning member of society i'm here to serve and share my talents with those in my community." earlier in year yanik was one of six dreamers who met with the president of the i do not us in the oval office. here's what the president said after he met with yanik and the other five. "he he said, "i don't think there's anybody in america who's had a chance to talk to these six young people who wouldn't find it in their heart to say to these kids, you're just as american as any of us and you belong here and we want to do right by you."

well i think president obama is right. yanik and the other dreamers have such so much to contribute to our country. but, sadly republicans in congress have a different agenda. they want to shut down did daca, which allows this young man to go to school in the only country he's ever known and they want to shut down the did dapa program which the president has implemented to try to protect the parents of those who have been here at least five years. if they have their way this young man will be deported to senegal, a country where he hasn't lived since he was a little boy. will america be better if we get rid of folks like him? will it be a better country if we tear families apart? i don't think so. instead of trying to deport dreamers and moms and dads, congressional republicans should work with us to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill to fix our broken immigration system. the estimates are wide ranging

as to how many young people are in america like ysm anik. some say 1.5 million. some say 2.5 million. it wasn't that long ago that we had a bill on the floor of the united states senate. that entire gallery was filled with young dreamer. and they came wearing caps and gowns. that was their decision to make the point that they're students, students who are learning and trying to improve their lives to be better and be a imert better pennsylvania park of america. that bill was defeated that day. broke my heart. i went to meet with them afterwards. i said to them, don't give up. don't give up on me because i'm not giving up on you. i got started in this battle 15 years ago. 15 years ago when i met a young korean girl in chicago brought here at the age of two, who was a musical prodigy. she'd been accepted at juilliard school of music and manhattan

conservatory music. but she was afraid she couldn't go. she was undocumented. her mom and dad brought her to this country at the age of two and never filed the papers. she grew up here in a very poor family but she went into the merit music program from chicago and became an accomplished musician. it was because of her that i started and flowftd the introduced the dream act. good news. she went on to the manhattan conservatory of music. a generous family in chicago paid for it because she couldn't get any assistance. she married a young map became an american citizen played in carnegie hall and is now pursuing her ph.d. in music. is america better because of that? yes, it is. i have no doubt that it is. and those who don't see the promise in the eyes of these young people and don't see what they could bring to this america have forgotten who we are. we are a nation of immigrants. we are a nation that has allowed young people like these a chance to succeed.

one of them happened to be my mother brought here at the age of two by a mother who didn't speak english. she grew up in this country. my mom did. raised a family, i was one of the kids. here i stand on the floor of the united states senate. that's my story. that's my family's story. it's america's story. and the people who show such loathing for these young people and what they mean to us have forgotten that. they've ignored that. let's rekindle our faith in what makes america great: our diversity, the ambition of young people like ysm yanik and the dominican republic nation of our generation -- and the determination of our generation to give people a chance. all the petty politics aside we're talking about human lives and about an opportunity for this young man and so many others to prove to us what they can do for the future of

america. mr. president, i ask consent that the next statement i make be placed in a separate part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president if you had to characterize the current congress with one symbol i'll tell you what i think it should be: an extension cord. you know what i mean? the extension cord that you use at home that -- if the plug doesn't quite reach the outlet. why would i pick an extension cord? because this year, under the leadership in congress, all we have been doing is extending things a little bit just a little bit when we have to. the department of homeland security appropriation -- one of the most important when it comes to the security and safety of the united states -- had to be extended and extended and extended sadly because many in the house wanted to fight the battle of immigration over that bill. eventually we prevailed and passed the appropriation after extension after extension. and then two weeks ago here on

the floor of the senate, we extend the federal highway trust fund. what is that? that is the fund where we collect gas taxes -- every time you buy a gallon of gas -- put it in fund and then build highways and bridges. we count on that. and it used to be a glorious program. the inspiration for that program was president dwight david ice inhour. in the -- eisenhower. in the 1950's, president eisenhower could come back from leading america to victory in world war ii. he saw in europe, particularly in germany an amazing highway system that did not exist in the united states. so president eisenhower said, we need an interstate highway system in america. it was a bold idea that the federal government would lead in creating an interstate highway system to link every corner of our nation. there's not a state that i know of -- certainly not my state -- where the interstate highway system hasn't had a dramatic,

positive impact on the economy. and so with the federal highway trust fund, we built the interstate highway system, we extended the highway system, and now we're in the process of making bridges safer making certain that the highways are extended where they need to be to keep businesses thriving and to create new businesses and jobs in america. but along comes a group in congress a conservative group that says, this is all wrong. some of them question whether the federal government should even have a role in transportation. for them, i have three words: dwight david eisenhower, republican president who showed the way. and some say it's just impossible to figure out how to fund the building of highways. well we've done pretty well so far in the federal gas tax that's collected and clearly we need to look to other forms of revenue. about to give up on the federal highway program?

two weeks ago on the floor of the senate we had the 33rd short-term extension of that program. what it means is, we extended it this time for 60 days. the federal highway program used to be a six-year program. why was it six years? because think about planning engineering, acquiring land and building a highway. you can't do it in 60 days, not six months, not even a year. you have to have a commitment of funds that are coming back to the states. in my state in illinois, about 75% of all the highway construction comes from federal funds. so when we do short-term extensions it really says to the states, you can't count on us. this money will run out at the end of july. maybe we'll extend is it again. maybe we won't. is that any way to run a nation? is that any way to run a transportation system? again, using the extension cord, this time for 60 days.

just a week or so ago we had another -- i have effort on the floor of the senate to extendifies sax the suggestion was made by the majority leader here, let's extend it for a few days, a few days. this h's has become a pattern and it is a troubling pattern. one aspect of it is particularly troublesome because at the end of june, unless there is a sincere bipartisan effort, we're going to lose the export-import bank. i've heard a lot of speeches in the senate about how the united states businesses, especially small businesses, are really the backbone of our economy. oh we all give those speeches. as these businesses grow and expand they often look to foreign exports. we know that every $1 billion in new export sales supports at least 6,000 new jobs in this country. so every opportunity to export

u.s. products helps communities and families. the primary federal program that allows most of these very small businesses to export is about to expire. it's about to expire at the end of this month. the export-import bank provides financing and insurance so that u.s. companies, many of them very small can compete in the global economy. here's how it wonches works. the export-import bank makes loans to companies exporting american-made goods. this allows businesses across the united states to sell their goods and services to businesses all over the worltd. -- all over the world. they support about 164,000 jobs. more than 100 of these companies are located in illinois, and more than 80 of them are smawsm the bank exports $27.4 billion in exports and guess what? it doesn't cost the taxpayers a penny. it actually makes money money

that's returned to the u.s. treasury for other purposes or to reduce our debt. over the past two decades 20 years, the the export importer back up has returned $27 million to the treasury. one of the companies it helped, the now health group in bloomingdale illinois, is supplement manufacturer with employees that work in exports. according to their chief operating officer jim emmy, the flexible repayment terms have allowed us to grow our business in existing markets as well as open new ones. this business could not have done it without the export-import bank. there are thousands of stories just like it all over the united states. i'm a cosponsor of senator should hurricane katrina's bill that would -- shaheen's bill that would increase the lending

cap to $^16 0 billion and reauthorize it through 2021, not the short extensions that we've seen under this leadership in congress. in the past, reauthorizing the ex-im bank was a bipartisan measure. republicans used to support it as much as democrats. but now there's a small group of republicans inspired by the heritage foundation who've decided, let's put an end to this bank. let's put an end to this opportunity for small businesses to hire americans and export goods overseas. their hatred of government blinds l them to the reality of this bank and the thousands of jobs that will be lost if they have their way and eliminate the ex-im bank. they also refuse to recognize that by failing to reauthorize this bank u.s. businesses can't compete with businesses in other country or still have access to their own export financing agencies. do you think china is putting

its ex-im bank out of business? it just increased its size. our major competitor, they've stepped up, in this case many of the leaders in congress are stepping back. so we're not only hurting ourselves here if we can't find a way to go forward the bank is set to expire at the end of the month, less than four weeks from now. i hope we can come to an agreement by then to pass a bill to reauthorize a program which is critically important for u.s. exports and i hope reasonable voices in the republican party will not allow a vocal minority to prevent us from reauthorizing this important program. mr. president, i have one last statement here, and i ask that it be placed in a separate part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president as the number of candidates grow for the office of president we're hearing a lot of proposals for changes in the tax code. many of them are interesting. some of them are damaging when it comes to working in

middle-income families. sadly we're seeing a race to the bottom on who can propose the lowest corporate tax rate giving huge breaks to the very companies that ship jobs overseas. most americans don't realize this. if you want to move your production from the united states to another country, you can deduct the moving expenses from the tax issue of america. you're subsidizing your decision to pick up and move jobs overseas. american workers, some of them are given a sad responsibility: to train the supervisors at the new overseas companies while american workers are checking out their last paychecks. i've got a different idea. instead of rewarding corporations with lower tax bills, we should reward those companies in america that maintain their commitment to this country and its workers and give fair wages and benefits to the american workers. we call it the patriot employer

tax credit act. it's very basic. when you look at the tax code, it is a huge document full of incentives and disincentives for business. we'll reward certain things. we won't reward other things. well, this is something we should consider rewarding. senator sherrod brown and i have introduced the patriot employer tax credit act which would provide a tax credit to american companies that treat american veterans and workers the best. it puts the tax code on the side of these companies. these patriot employers would be eligible for tax credit equal to 10% of the first $15,000 in qualified wages for american workers, which is about $1,200 per worker. in order to qualify for this tax credit, these companies have to meet five criteria. see if you think as i do, that these are good ideas. first, the company has to invest in american jobs.

businesses must remain headquartered here in the united states if they have been headquartered here before. the company would also have to maintain or increase the number of workers in the united states compared to the number of workers for their companies overseas and not decrease the number of workers through the use of contractors. and the company can't pick up and leave move to a foreign capital to avoid paying its fair share of u.s. taxes. number one invest in american jobs. locate in america. number two pay fair wages. the patriot employer, under our bill, would have to pay at least 90% of its employees $15 an hour. why did we pick $15 an hour? do the math. $15 an hour, 40 hours a week, about $30,000 a year. why? because if you make that amount of money you qualify for virtually no federal subsidies federal programs. you're earning a pay check and

you're supporting your family. you make less than that, you qualify for federal government assistance. so we're saying to employers if you'll pay dleeft $15 an -- at least $15 an hour we're going to give you this tax credit. third, provide quality health insurance for your employees consistent with the affordable care act. fourth help your employees prepare for retirement. we want to reward companies that offer at least 90% of their employees a defined benefit plan like a pension plan or a defined contribution plan, a decent employer contribution. fifth, employ a diverse workforce. we want companies to have a plan in place to help veterans and people with disabilities. i don't think that's too much to ask. we grab our flags and march in parades as politicians thanking the veterans over and over. why don't we thank them with a job and let's reward the companies that do. that's it. five conditions.

and with these five conditions, these companies these patriotic american companies would get a tax break. wouldn't it be better for us to incentivize american companies to do the right thing rather than pay the moving expenses for those that want to leave the country? that's the choice. i think it's pretty simple. i know it can be done because in skokie illinois, there's a company that's doing it. it's called block steel. it started 100 years ago and the company has grown to be the largest distribute tor of a liewm numberrize -- of aluminum mized steel in the nation. it has assured 77 employees are treated fairly. each of their employees are paid more than $15 an hour, good health care, good retirement. block steel should be rewarded for its efforts. under the patriot employer tax credit act block steel would qualify for a tax credit of up to $100,000. that's money they can invest in their business and grow it with

even more people working. i hope as this debate around tax reform continues we focus on rewarding companies that care about america. we shouldn't be blindly focused on the race to the bottom with the lowest wages. and i might add, this is paid for. it's paid for by eliminating that deduction for moving your businesses overseas that's currently part of the tax code. so let's reform the tax code the ride way with an -- the right way with an eye on helping the workers get a decent paycheck decent benefits and rewarding companies that put american workers first. i want to thank senator sherrod brown, senator elizabeth warren tammy bawd win and bernie sanders. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mccain: mr. president i ask unanimous consent further proceedings under the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: thank you. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order the senate will proceed to the consideration of h.r. 1735, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 99, h.r. 1735, an act to authorize appropriation for fiscal year 2016 for military activities of the department of defense and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order the time until 2:30 p.m. will be for debate only and equally divided between the bill managers or their designees. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i call up amendment number 1463 which is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report.

the clerk: the senator from arizona, mr. mccain, proposes an amendment numbered 1463. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent that the senate stand in recess from 1:00 p.m. until 2:00 p.m. today. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: and i ask unanimous consent that commander eric taylor, a navy fellow in my office be allowed floor privileges for the duration of the senate debate on h.r. 1735, the national defense authorization act for the fiscal year 2016. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: mr. president it's my pleasure to rise with my friend and colleague from rhode island to speak about the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2016. for 53 consecutive years congress has passed this vital piece of legislation which provides the necessary funding and authorizes -- i repeat,

authorizes for our military to defend the nation. the ndaa is one of few bills in congress that continues to enjoy bipartisan support year after year. this is a testimony to the legislation's critical importance to our national security and the high regard with which it is held by the congress. last month the senate armed services committee voted 22-4 to approve the ndaa, an overwhelming vote that reflects the committee's proud tradition of bipartisan support for the brave men and women of our armed services. i want to thank the committee's ranking member, the senator from rhode island. despite his failure of education and our nation's military -- at our nation's military academy i appreciate the thoughtfulness and bipartisan spirit with which he approaches our national security. it's been a pleasure to work with senator reed over the last few months and years on this

legislation, and today as we appear on the floor on behalf of this legislation. we have worked through some of the toughest issues facing our military today. we have our differences on some aspects of this legislation but those differences have never interfered with the search for common ground and consensus. this is a much better bill thanks to the senator from rhode island. i also want to thank the majority leader, the senator from kentucky, for his commitment to resuming regular order and bringing the ndaa to the floor this week. under the senator from kentucky's leadership, the senate will be able to take up this critical national security legislation on time, allowing for thoughtful consideration on amendments and giving our military the certainty they need to plan and execute their missions. that stands in stark contrast to the last two years.

under democratic leadership when this body failed to take up the ndaa until the very end of the year at the last minute, with no amendments allowed. just yesterday the democratic leader said considering this vital defense bill is just a -- quote -- waste of time. waste of time. those comments must have a very disappointing -- they must be very disappointing to the service members retirees and their families in his home state of nevada who clearly understand the importance of this legislation. the fiscal year 2016 ndaa is a reform bill. it tackles acquisition reform, military retirement reform, personnel reform, commissary reform headquarters and management reform. this legislation delivers sweeping defense reforms that can enable our military to rise to the challenges of a more dangerous world both today and

in the future. the armed services committee identified $10 billion of excess and unnecessary spending from the president's defense budget request, and we are reinvesting it in military capabilities for our war fighters and reforms that can yield long-term savings for the department of defense and we did all of this while upholding our pliments to our service members our commitments to our service members retirees and their families. this legislation is reflective of the growing threats we face in the world. over the past few months, the senate armed services committee has received testimony from many of america's most respected statesmen, thinkers and former military commanders. these leaders had a common warning -- america is facing the most diverse and complex array of crises since the second world war. just consider some of the troubling events that have transpired over just the past

year. in ukraine russia has sought to redraw an international border and annex the territory of another sovereign country through the use of military force. it continues aggressively to destabilize ukraine. the troubling implications for security in europe. and yet, the president continues to refuse to provide ukraine with the defensive weapons they need and have repeatedly requested to defend their sovereign nation from russia's onslaught. in the middle east, a terrorist army with tens of thousands of fighters many holding western passports, has taken over a vast swath of territory and declared an islamic state in the heart of one of the most strategically important parts of the world. nearly 3,000 u.s. troops have returned to iraq to combat this threat with u.s. aircraft flying hundreds of strike missions a month over iraq and

syria. unfortunately, as recent reports suggest, nearly 75% of those air missions never even dropped weapons, and meanwhile isis is taking territory on the ground, most recently in ramadi and palmyra. at the same time negotiations over its nuclear program iran continues to pursue its ambitions to challenge regional order in the middle east by increasing its development of ballistic missiles, support for terrorism training and arming of pro-iranian militant groups and other malign activities in places such as iraq, syria lebanon, gaza, bahrain and yemen. yemen has collapsed as a shia insurgency with ties to the iranian regime has toppled the u.s.-backed government in sanaa. al qaeda continues to use parts of the country to plan attacks against the west, the u.s.

embassy has been evacuated and a u.s.-backed coalition of arab nations has intervened militarily to -- militarily to reverse the gains of the huthi insurgency. libya has become a failed state. beset by civil war and a growing presence of transnational terrorist groups, such as al qaeda and isil, similar to afghanistan in 2001. in asia, north korea continues to develop its nuclear arsenal and ever more capable ballistic missiles and late last year it committed the most destructive cyber attack ever on u.s. territory. china is increasingly taking coercive actions to assert expansive territorial claims that unilaterally change the status quo in the south and east china seas and raise tends with u.s. allies and partners all the while continuing to expand and

modernize its military in ways that challenge u.s. access and freedom of movement in the western pacific. a repeat report in "the wall street journal" described how china has taken steps to militarize the vast land features that it actively -- that it is actively reclaiming in the south china sea. unfortunately, i could go on. but these are just some of the growing threats our nation faces. threats that are far more serious than they were a year ago, and significantly more so than when congress passed the budget control act in 2011. that legislation arbitrarily capped defense spending and established the mindless mechanism of sequestration which was triggered in 2013. as a result, with worldwide threats rising, we as a nation are on a course to cut nearly $1 trillion of defense spending

over ten years. the committee on armed services has conducted wide-ranging bipartisan oversight on the effects of sequestration level spending on our national defense. in every single military and national security leader who has testified before the committee this year has denounced sequestration and urged its repeal as soon as possible. indeed each of our military service chiefs testified that continued defense spending at sequestration levels would put american lives at risk. i want to repeat to my colleagues our armed services leaders have told the armed services committee that american lives are at risk if we continue mindless sequestration. don't we care about the risk we

are putting the lives of the young men and women who have volunteered to serve in our military? don't we care about them? so i urge my colleagues, i urge my colleagues in the senate and the house to come together and repeal sequestration and however way that is done, i would be glad to discuss. but our first priority has always been and always will be american security, our national security. and the lives of the men and women who have volunteered to defend it. this legislation doesn't end sequestration, unfortunately. believe me, our committee would have done so if the ndaa were possible -- or capable of it but it is not. the ndaa is a policy bill. it deals only with defense and national security issues, it does not spend a dollar.

it provides the department of defense and our men and women in uniform with the authorities and support they need to defend the nation. though the committee could not end sequestration we did the most we could to authorize necessary levels of funding for the department of defense and our men and women in uniform. as a result, the ndaa fully supports president obama's budget request of $612 billion for national defense which is $38 billion above the spending caps established by the budget control act. let me repeat that. this legislation gives the president every dollar of budget authority that he requested. the difference is our legislation follows the senate budget resolution and funds that $38 billion increase through overseas contingency operations

or o.c.o. funds. this is not my preferred option it's not anybody's preferred option that i know of. i recognize that reliance on o.c.o. spending limits the ability of the department of defense to modernize our military. for this reason the committee included a special transfer authority in this legislation that allows the department of defense to transfer the additional $38 billion from o.c.o. to the base budget in the event that legislation is enacted that increases the statutory limitations on discretionary defense and nondefense spending in proportionately equal amounts. this was the product of a bipartisan compromise and it was the most we could do in the ndaa to recognize the need for a broader fiscal agreement without denying funding for our military right now. nevertheless the white house threatened yesterday to veto

this legislation over its additional o.c.o. spending and because the congress has not provided for similar increases in nondefense spending. this is misguided and irresponsible. with global threats rising, how does it make any sense to oppose a defense policy bill legislation that spends no money, but is full of vital authorities that our troops need, for a reason that has nothing to do with national defense spending? the ndaa should not be treated as a hostage in a budget negotiation. the political reality is that the budget control act which the president signed and remains the law of the land so faced with the choice between o.c.o. money and no money i choose o.c.o. and multiple senior military leaders testified before the

armed services committee this year that they would make the same choice for one simple reason -- this is $38 billion of real money that our military desperately needs and without which our top military leaders have said they cannot succeed. military leader after military leader has testified before our committee they cannot carry out their obligations in their various commands to defend the nation if the budget control act known as sequestration continues. so my message is simple. let's have our fights over government spending, but let's keep those fights where they belong in the appropriations process where money is actually spent. the ndaa is not the place for it. if the president and some of my colleagues oppose the ndaa due

to concerns over nondefense spending i suspect they will have a very difficult time explaining and justifying that choice to americans who increasingly cite national security as a top concern. i care about nondefense spending. i really believe that we need to fund many of the areas such as the f.b.i., such as border patrol and others. but somehow to equate that with national defense with the world as we see it today is either out of ignorance or partisanship. i don't know which. but neither is a valid ambition. the ndaa -- or reason. the ndaa is a policy bill, and this year's version is an incredibly ambitious one. it advances major reform initiatives that can make more efficient use of our precious taxpayers' dollars while

increasing military capability for our war fighters. in recent years the defense department has grown larger but less capable more complex but less innovative, more proficient at defeating low-tech adversaries but more vulnerable to high-tech ones. no one is more cognizant of this unfortunate fact than those of us whose responsibility it is to oversee our defense budget on the armed services committee. it is a top priority for me and for my colleague from rhode island as well as all of my fellow committee members to ensure that every dollar we spend on defense is used wisely efficiently and effectively. the fiscal year 2016 ndaa makes important contributions to this reform effort. this legislation contains sweeping acquisition reform. many of our military's challenges today are the result

of years of mistakes and wasted resources. one recent study found that the defense department had spent $46 billion between 2001 and 2011 on at least a dozen programs that never became operational. i want to repeat, $46 billion on programs that never became operational. what's worse and i'm not sure who, if anyone, has ever held -- if anyone was ever held accountable for these failures. two years ago i asked the chief of naval operations in a hearing who was responsible for $24.4 billion in cost overruns on the u.s.s. gerald r. ford aircraft carrier. he had no answer. in today's vast acquisition bureaucracy where personnel and project managers cycle through

rapidly, everyone is accountable and no one is accountable. we need acquisition reform now because our senior leaders must be held accountable for responsible stewardship of taxpayers' dollars. but this is not just about saving money. acquisition reform is needed immediately to preserve u.s. technological and military dominance, and is therefore a national security imperative. over the last decade, our adversaries have vested inned modernizing their militaries with focus on aerial technologies designed is specifically to counter american military strengths. meanwhile, an acquisition system that takes too long and costs too much is leading to the erosion of america's defense technological advantage. if we continue with business as usual, i fear the united states

could lose this advantage altogether. in short our broken defense acquisition system itself is a clear and present danger to the national security of the united states. the acquisition reforms in this legislation center on five principal objectives. first legislation establishes effective accountability for results. we give greater authority to the military services to manage their own programs and we enhance the role of the service chiefs in the acquisition process. in exchange for greater authority, the bill demands accountability and creates new mechanisms to deliver it. service chiefs, service secretaries, service acquisition executives, and program managers would sign up to binding management requirement and resource commitments. the bill also creates new incentives for the services to

deliver programs on time and on budget. if military services fail to manage a program effectively they will lose authority and control over that program. and they will be assessed an annual cost penalty on their cost overruns with those funds directed towards acquisition risk reduction efforts across the department. second the legislation supports the use of flexible acquisition authorities and the development of alternative acquisition paths to acquire critical national security capabilities. the bill establishes a new streamlined acquisition and requirements process for rapid prototyping and rapid fielding within two to five years. it expands rapid acquisition authorities for contingency operations and cybersecurity missions. and the legislation allows the secretary of defense to waive unnecessary acquisition laws to

acquire vital national security capabilities. third, the ndaa improves access to nontraditional and military contractors. to give our military the necessary capabilities to defend the nation the department of defense must be able to access organization in in areas such as cyber, robotics data annual itics, and autonomy information that is much more likely to some from silicon valley austin or mesa than washington. but our broken acquisition system with its complex regulation and stifling bureaucracy, is leading many commercial firms to choose not to do business with the defense department or to limit their engagement in ways that prevent the department from accessing the critical technologies that these companies have to offer. the ndaa creates incentivizes for commercial innovation by

removing barriers to new entrants into the defense market. by adopting commercial buying practices for the defense department the legislation makes it easier for nontraditional firms to do business with the pentagon. the legislation also ensures that businesses are not forced to cede intellectual property developed at their expense to the government. fourth the ndaa streamlines the process for buying weapons systems, services and information technology by reducing unnecessary requirements reports and certifications. the legislation retains positive reforms made in the weapons system acquisition reform act in 2009 but streamlines processes to support more rapid and efficient development and delivery of new capabilities. it would also establish an expert review panel to identify unneeded acquisitions regulations. and fifth the legislation

reinvigorates the acquisition work force in several ways, including by establishing several direct higher authorities for science and technology professionals to join the acquisition work force. the legislation seeks to improve the attractiveness of acquisition functions to skilled military personnel through credits for acquisition related assignments, creation of an advanced -- enhanced dual track career path to include acquisition and increased business and commercial training opportunities. in a statement of administration policy released yesterday the white house asserted that transferring some acquisition authority back to the services is somehow inconsistent with the secretary of defense's exercise of authority direction and control overall of department of defense's programs and activities. i could not disagree more with this assertion.

what this legislation does is merely switch who does what in certain circumstances from different people who all directly report and serve under the authority direction and control of the secretary of defense. in this legislation for a limited number of programs to start with, the secretary of defense will look to the service secretaries directly for management of these acquisition programs rather than looking to the under secretary of defense for acquisition technology and logistics or a.t.l. there is not for usurpation of the secretary of defense's power. it's called streamlining of authorities and reducing layers of unnecessary bureaucracy. there is a section in the legislation that would allow the secretary of defense to continue to rely on more layers of management if he chooses but only if he certifies to congress that this makes sense.

there simply is not any undermining of the secretary of defense's authority in here. another concern raised has been that the transfer of milestone decision authority to the services would reduce the secretary of defense's ability through a.t.l. to guard against unwarranted optimism and program planning and budget formulation. unwarranted optimism is indeed a plague on acquisition and there is not a monopoly of that in the services. yet, there is nothing in this bill that overrides the requirement to use better cost estimates from the office of cost assessment and program evaluation and in fact new incentives and real penalties imposed on the services in the bill are designed to put some of this optimism in check. there's also a belief manufactured in parts of the department that the current

system is working. they're saying that the current system is working. that is laughable. the statistics are improving first of all because secretary gates canceled over 25 programs. it's easier to make your numbers when you are unilaterally disarming and buying less. still, all of the programs that are left under the u.s. defense department a.t.l. management have over $200 billion in cost overruns. i want to repeat -- $200 billion in cost overruns under the current setup. that's why it's imperative that we change it. there are a lot of words to describe this but success is not one of them. usda a.t.l. is trying to have credit bo both ways.

taking credit for the improvements while blaming the services for its long list of failures. that's exactly the problem this legislation is trying to address. blurred lines of accountability inside the defense acquisition system that allow its leaders to evade responsibility for results. then there is the issue of process and documentation. defenders of the current acquisition system say they have it right. they might if our adversary was the old soviet union and their centralized planned economy. the reality for the modern world is that under usda management process takes too long, adds costs and looks like it was designed by a soviet apparachik. for example an army study an army study looked at the time it would take to go through all of the u.s. defense department a.t.l. reviews and buy nothing.

what was the answer? ten years to buy nothing. the government accountability office looked at the much-vaunted milestone reviews that the office of secretary before defense is touting as a success. just one review takes on average two years. a similar review at the missile defense agency takes about three months. our adversaries are not shuffling paper. they are building weapons systems. it is time for us to do the same. the first step is to eliminate unnecessary calls for data from those outside the program office just as david packard recommended 30 years ago. this does -- this legislation does that. the acquisition reforms in this bill are sweeping, but there is much more work to do to transition what in essence a cold war management system into one that is more agile and nimble to meet the challenges of

a globalized information age. this legislation marks the beginning of a multiyear process to change the acquisition system to be more open to next generation technologies that can enable the united states to outpace its adversaries. acquisition reform is part of a larger effort to reform the management of the department of defense. this bill seeks to ensure that the department and the military services are using precious defense dollars to fulfill their missions and defend the nation, not to expand their bloated staffs. while staff at army headquarters increased 60% over the past decade the army is now cutting brigade combat teams. the air force avoided mandated cuts to headquarters personnel by creating two new headquarters

entities even as it complained it had insufficient personnel to maintain combat aircraft. i want to repeat that. the air force mandated cuts to headquarters personnel not by reducing by a single person but by creating new headquarter entities even as it complained it had insufficient personnel to maintain combat aircraft. from 2001-2012 the defense civilian work force grew at five times the rate of the active duty military. i repeat that again. from 2001-2012 the defense civilian work force grew at five times the rate of the active duty military. this legislation initiates a reorganization of the department of defense in order to focus limited resources on operations rather than administration, to ensure military personnel can

develop critical military skills and to stabilize organizations and programs. the ndaa mandates a 30% cut in funding for headquarters and administrative staff over the next four years. these reductions generate $1.7 billion in savings for fiscal year 2016, and as the department implements these reductions this bill authorizes the secretary of defense to retain the best talent available rather than just the longest serving. contrary to the statement of the administration policy that the white house issued yesterday the reductions to pentagon overhead and management staff are neither arbitrary or across the board. these cuts are targeted to administrative functions but they do not inflict unintended harms on functions such as mortuary affairs or sexual assault prevention. the legislation does not seek to

micromanage the defense department. it cuts money from broad headquarters and administrative functions, but it defers to the secretary of defense on how what and where exactly to cut and it instructs him to device a plan to make these cuts wisely. beyond management reform, the ndaa also puts forward wide-ranging and unprecedented reform to the military retirement system. under the current 70-year-old system 83% of service members leave the service without any retirement assets. this system includes the vast majority of current service members who will not complete 20 years of uniform service including many veterans of the wars in afghanistan and iraq. the legislation creates a modernized retirement system and extends retirement benefits to the vast majority of service members through a new plan

offering more value and choice. under the new plan, 75% of service members would get retirement benefits. in many cases the overall benefit of those serving at least 20 years will be greater than the current system. these -- this new modernized retirement system will apply to members first joining a uniformed service on or after january 1 2018. current members are grandfathered but may choose to be covered by the new plan. retirement reforms in this legislation will enable service members to save for retirement earlier in their careers create a new incentive to recruit millennials and increase retention across the services. that's why these reforms are supported by the veterans of foreign wars, the reserve officers association the national guard association the

enlisted association of the national guard and the air force association, among others. in addition to retirement reform the ndaa focuses on sustaining the quality of life of our military service members retirees and their families. the legislation authorizes a 1.3% pay raise for members of the uniformed services in the grade of 06 and below. the bill authorizes $25 million to support local educational agencies that serve military dependent children and $5 million in impact aid for schools with military dependent children with severe disabilities. the ndaa includes many provisions to improve the military health system and tricare. the legislation allows a tricare beneficiary up to four urgent care visits without making them get a preauthorization. it requires department of defense to establish appointment access standards and wait time

goals, and if a patient can't get an appointment within standards, the military hospital must offer an appointment in the tricare network. the legislation requires d.o.d. to focus more on health care quality, patient safety and beneficiary satisfaction by making them publish health outcome measures on their web sites, and it requires a plan to improve the delivery of pediatric health care, especially for children with special needs. furthermore, as military families frequently move from one location to another their health care coverage must be seamless and portable, but too often families have to leap over several hurdles to get health care in a new location. this has to stop. we take care of that problem in this legislation. the ndaa also builds on the work of the last few years to prevent

military sexual asought. it contains a number of provisions aimed at strengthening the authorities of special victims' counsel to provide services to victims of sexual assault. the legislation enhances confidential reporting option for victims of sexual assault and increases access to timely disclosure of certain materials and information in connection with the approximate of offense -- prosecution of offenses. this is a fiscally responsible ndaa. i have said my top priority as chairman of the senate armed services committee is to repeal sequestration and return to a strategy-driven defense budget. but i've also made clear that repealing sequestration must be accompanied by a vigorous effort to root out and eliminate pentagon waste. given the fiscal constraints and global challenges confronting our military, we simply cannot

afford to waste precious defense dollars. our committee identified over $10 billion in excessive and unnecessary spending in the president's budget request. headquarters and administrative overhead, troubled information technology programs, weapons systems that are overbudget and underperforming, among other items. the ndaa reinvests those savings in providing critical military capabilities for our war fighters and meeting unfunded priorities of our service chiefs and combatant commanders. even as challenges to maritime security increase in the middle east and the western pacific our navy remains well below its fleet size requirement of 306 ships. moreover our shipbuilding budget will experience even greater pressure at the end of this decade as the navy procures the replacement for the ohio-class ballistic missile submarine.

the ndaa directs savings identified in the budget request to accelerate navy modernization and shipbuilding to mitigate the impacts of the ohio class replacement and to increase the navy to meet rising threats. the legislation adds $800 million for additional advance procurement for virginia-class submarines and $200 billion for the next amphibious assault ship. the bill provides incremental funding authority for one additional destroyer. the bill accelerates the navy l lxr shipbuilding program for the afloat forward staging base and procurement of the first landing craft utility replacement. the ndaa upgrades an additional guided missile destroyer with ballistic missile defense capability and funds advanced underseas pay loads for submarines. across the services, our

military faces dangerous strike fighter capacity shortfalls. for example we have seen delivery of the f-35 joint strike fighter fall well short of projections even as the air force has retired hundreds of aircraft. indeed, the president's budget request proposed cutting the air force down to 49 fighter squadrons of which less than half would be fully combat mission ready. the ndaa addresses these shortfalls which is all the more urgent in view of ongoing and anticipated operations in iraq and syria against isil as well as a potential delay of force withdrawals from afghanistan. the ndaa fully restores the planned retirement of the a-10 aircraft. as the air force itself has said in its posture statement this year -- and i quote -- "there was a time when the air force could trade some capacity in

order to retain capability. but we have reached the point where the two are inextricable. lose any more capacity, and the capability will cease to exist." the armed services committee agrees and that's why divesting the a-10 capability at this time incurs unacceptable risk in the capacity and readiness of the combat air forces without a suitable replacement available. the ndaa authorizes procurement funding for 12 additional superhornets for the navy, six joint strike fighters for the marine corps. the legislation also procures an m-2-9 reaper for the air force to support increased combatant commander requirements for medium altitude intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance support. the committee was similarly concerned about munitions

capacity across the services so the ndaa adds funding for additional pump ac-3 missiles for ballistic missile defense and amraam missiles. the legislation increases tomahawk missile production to the minimal sustaining rate and two antitank missiles to mitigate shortfalls for the marine corps. the ndaa supports modernization across the services. the legislation invests in lethality by enhancing the firepower of striker combat vehicles and increasing the survivability of the apache attack helicopter against new threats. the ndaa fully supports the president's request for the f-35 joint strike fighter program and provides all executable funding for the long-range strike bomber program. in addition the legislation authorizes -- the legislation authorizes 6.$1 billion for

virginia-class submarines, $3.5 billion for articley bird class destroyers and $1.4 billion for the highway class replacement program. while the ndaa supports our commanders' most urgent priorities the bill contains rigorous oversight measures to prevent further cost growth in major acquisition programs, including the f-35 joint strike fighter, ford class aircraft carrier and the litoral combat ship. as adversaries seek to thwart american military power the ndaa looks to the future and invests in the technologies that will maintain america's military technological superiority. the ndaa provides $400 million in additional funding to support the so-called third offset strategy to outpace our emerging adversaries. the legislation funds a cyber vulnerability assessment, a new

initiative to enable the services to begin evaluating all major weapons systems for cyber vulnerabilities. it also increases investment in six breakthrough technologies, cyber capabilities, low cost, high speed munitions undersea warfare, intelligence data analytics and directed energy. similarly, our nation has only begun to realize the potential of unmanned combat aircraft, especially in a maritime environment. in the past two years the unmanned combat air system demonstration program or ucas-d has achieved a number of firsts. the first catapult launch, the first arrested landing on a carrier, the first cooperative operations with manned cake aboard a carrier and the first autonomous aerial renewing.

the ndaa funds the remaining development work to be completed on ucsad while directing the secretary of defense to develop competitive prototypes that move the department toward a carrier -based unmanned long range low-observable penetrating strike aircraft that can enhance the capability of the carrier air wings to meet future threats. the ndaa supports our allies and partners with robust training and assistance initiatives. the legislation authorizes nearly $3.8 billion in support for afghan security forces as they continue to defend their country and the gains of the last decade against our common enemies. the legislation also authorizes the provision of defensive lethal assistance to ukraine to help it build combat capability

and defend its sovereign territory. the legislation supports efforts by lebanon and jordan to secure their borders against isil and it creates a new initiative to provide equipment supplies, and training to southeast asian nations in building domain awareness capabilities and growing sovereignty challenges in the south china sea. finally, this legislation contains a bipartisan compromise on how to address the challenge of the detention facility of guantanamo bay. president obama has said from day one of his presidency that he wants to close guantanamo but six and a half years into his administration the president of the united states has never provided a plan to do so. the ndaa would require the president -- the administration to provide a comprehensive plan to the congress on how it

intends to close guantanamo, which would then have to be approved by both houses of congress. that plan would have to include a case-by-case determination on the disposition of each dannyee -- detainee at guantanamo bay including a discussion of the legal challenges of bringing detainees to the united states and any additional authorities that might be needed. the plan would also have to address how the department would ensure the continueed detention and intelligence collection from future combatants captured under the laws of war. if such a plan is approved, the congress would provide the president the authority to proceed with the closure of the facility. if the congress does not approve the plan, nothing would change the ban on domestic transfers would stay in force and the certification standards for foreign transfers included in the ndaa would remain. mr. president, this is an

ambitious piece of legislation. it recognizes that in order to ensure that the department of defense is prepared to meet our present and future national security challenges, we must champion the cause of defense reform. rigorously root out pentagon waste, and invest in modernization and next-generation technologies to maintain our military technological advantage. america has reached a key point. the liberal world order which has been anchored by u.s. hard power for seven decades is being seriously stressed. and with it, the foundation of our security and prosperity. it doesn't have to be this way. we can choose a better future for ourselves but only if we make the right decisions now to set us on a better course. that is what this legislation is all about.

living up to our constitutional duty to provide for the common defense, increasing the effectiveness of our military restoring america's global leadership and defending a liberal world order. this legislation is a small step toward accomplishing those goals, but it is an important step that the congress must take now and take together. for 53 consecutive years congress has passed a national defense authorization act. this year should be no different. i am hopeful that the bipartisan spirit that has carried the legislation for over half a century will prevail once again. ultimately we owe the brave men and women in uniform many of whom are still in harm's way around the world today nothing less. mr. president, i have eight

unanimous consent requests for the committee to meet today during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: mr. president i yield. mr. reed: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: mr. president i rise 20 discuss the fiscal year 2016 national defense authorization act which was reported out of the armed services committee. i want to begin by commending the chairman, senator mccain for his extraordinary leadership and i also want to reflect because both the presiding officer and the senator from alaska and i had the privilege of being with senator mccain in vietnam last week. and to recognize firsthand the heroic service of commander john

mccain is to recognize an extraordinary individual whose service, whose sacrifice whose valor whose fidelity to the principles of our military and to our nation is virtually unique. but more importantly than that, was to recognize that after observing the horrors and brutality of war as few people have that he was able to summon the courage and the capacity to bring two countries together. without senator mccain's active participation not alone, but absolutely essential and perhaps the most essential part the government of the united states and the government of vietnam would not have diplomatic relations today. we would have not been in a

university in vietnam listening to young people talk about their future a future that is not clouded by war but has the opportunity for peace and prosperity working with us and working with the world community. i can't think of any historical examples of individuals working so hard to defeat each other then so hard to embrace each other, save, of course, general grant and general lee but i know the senator would be offended to be compared to two west point graduates. so i will simply say that he has made historic contributions to this country in so many ways. so it is no surprise that he is taken the leadership of this committee and made a remarkable contribution. his vision to engage us in a

strategic dialogue with some of the most sophisticated and experienced individuals in the country -- henry kissinger madeleine albright and a host of others. gave us the perspective to begin to look at the issues we face in a much more comprehensive and a much more thoughtful way. and i have had the privilege of serving on the committee for many years. no one has done that, no one has set the stage so well. and then to bring our d.o.d. witnesses together for the strategic vision and the observation of the budgetary requirements were absolutely incredible. all of this has made us better prepared on the committee to write this bill that is before us today. let me also take a moment to thank the work of the professional staff on both sides of the aisle. their willingness to work together to tackle the hard issues has been the key to this

authorization bill. and i want to thank them in advance because their work has just begun. the hours they will spend over the next several days to go through the significant number of amendments, all of that will be unnoticed by many but appreciated certainly by myself and the chairman and all of us on the committee. thank you. and, mr. president as the senator from arizona pointed out, this is a basically good bill. it has many provisions that are requested by the department of defense. it has many necessary reforms. the chairman has highlighted many of them. it will i think further our national security in many dimensions. and most importantly it will provide the training, the equipment and the support our men and women in uniform deserve. and i will try to focus on some of these important developments. however, there are some provisions of this bill that

cause me concern indeed grave concern. one problem is the familiar, oft-debated and very complicated challenge of guantanamo. while we have had some very carefully crafted compromise language in this bill, there are other provisions that reverse progress particularly on the overseas transfer of detainees. we have a number of individuals that have been vetted for overseas transfer. not to the united states. that is, not appropriate at this moment but overseas. and we i think have to continue that effort to repatriate these individuals outside the united states in areas in which their security and their activities can be appropriately monitored. i will spend a few more minutes -- in a few minutes i'll discuss an amendment that i will propose with respect. despite all these good

provisions however, i was ultimately unable to vote for the bill. after working closely and i sincerely with the leadership of the chairman reluctantly unable to vote for the bill because at the heart the funding mechanism to provide a significant portion of the resources $39 billion is i think an unsustainable aspect of the legislation. as the senator pointed out the legislation before us does not end the budget control act's arbitrary caps on spending, and as he also said, every major military official, every major senior defense official came and told us we have to end the budget control act caps and the prospect of sequestration. we have not done that.

what the still does is adopt a device some have said a gimmick that uses the overseas spending account to fund base activities at the department of defense. yes, i have indicated and the chairman has suggested the one request consistently received -- in fact, just a few days ago the commander of the pacific forces indicated the same thing end sequestration. we have not been able to do that. now, what the president's budget did, he set up a request for $38 billion above the budget cap levels in the base. not overseas spending but in the base. he requested $50.9 billion for contingency operations, overseas operations. we have been funding overseas

operations since 9/11. this funding was designed to do what it suggests in the title. we have forces deployed overseas in combat, in contact with our enemies -- afghanistan iraq and elsewhere. and this funding was to provide for those forces and indirectly for our supporting mechanisms, but the key was to support these forces overseas. and now what we've done -- and we've done because we were unable to eliminate the budget caps under the budget control act -- is we have taken this o.c.o. account and we have grossed it up dramatically. this has several problems. it doesn't resolve in some cases it complicates the d.o.d.'s budget problems. o.c.o. as i said, created and should be used for war cost only.

o.c.o. has limits, restrictions. it has very strict rules that have to be followed so it's not flexible funds that can be moved around at will. and defense budgeting needs to be based on a long-term military strategy which requires the d.o.d. to focus at least five years ahead. o.c.o. money is one-year money. it's just this year. there is no committee statutorily that it will be available. there is no presumption because it's the base that will be the starting point of discussions to the next budget, and frankly and obviously we cannot fight a multigenerational war with one-year money and we are in a multigenerational conflict. it has been more than a decade since we started our efforts in the wake of 9/11, and we have challenges that will not resolve themselves in a year. and to adopt a major part of our

budget roughly $39 billion as one-time supposedly funds is not wise and sensible and an appropriate way to fund our security going forward. another aspect of this, it doesn't reduce the deficit. it adds to the deficit. this is all deficit funding. so this is not a way to avoid tough decisions about how we're going to deal with our deficit. and it also does not reach other vital aspects of national security that are housed in domestic agencies which are also critical for our national defense. the f.b.i., homeland security, the coast guard. all of these agencies contribute dramatically to our national sense. in fact, particularly with the threat of lone wolf, and that is increasingly more concern to all of us, these agencies play even

a more significant role in our overall national security. and when you talk about a national security strategy it's simply not the department of defense. it's the department of state it's engagement overseas. again, as we were in vietnam we were talking to the defense minister and one of his key priorities is a project to eliminate toxins from bin wa airfield an airfield we used extensively in vietnam. to him that would be a huge indication of our support for their efforts. that is not funded through the department of defense. that would be principally funded through the a.i.d. and you could go on and on and on. and the approach we offer in the bill does not go to the heart of the problem that faces the

department of defense and every other federal agency, and those are the b.c.a. caps and the steep cuts that will come into effect if sequester is invoked. that's the heart of the matter. now, i offered an amendment in committee to address this problem. unfortunately, it failed. and that was one of the reasons that i reluctantly and very reluctantly chose not to support the bill, because there are so many as the chairman has indicated and i will indicate, so many important provisions in this bill. what i tried to do is to say let's leave this money on the books but let's fence it off until we can fix the real problem, which is the b.c.a., the budget control act and sequestration, affecting defense and nondefense alike. and i would hope to be able in

the context of this floor debate to once again rejoin that issue and to ask my colleagues to recognize the heart of the matter not the consequences affecting defense but the heart of the matter, which is the budget control act. now, as i said, this is a bill with many laudatory provisions, reflecting in large part by cooperation. some of them have been discussed by the chairman, but i would like to also mention them. the bill provides key funding and authority for the two major u.s.-led coalition operations, the mission in afghanistan and the counter isis coalition in iraq and syria. and critical to both of these operations are efforts to build the capacity of our partner nations. with regard to afghanistan the bill includes a full $3.8 billion requested by the president to support the afghan army police and other security forces fighting to secure the hard-fought gains of the past decade and ensure that

afghanistan does not once again become the safe haven for al qaeda or other terrorist groups seeking to attack america. the bill would also increase the total number of visas for the afghan special immigration visa program by 3,000 providing a path to safety for afghans who put themselves at risk by serving as translating lators or otherwise helping our coalition efforts. now, for coalition efforts against isis, the bill provides additional funding for training and equipping the iraqi security forces and other associated forces in iraq, including the kurdish peshmerga and sunni tribes who are confronting the threat in isis and heavily contested anbar province and other parts of iraq. it includes $80 million for the office of security cooperation in iraq. it also provides an additional $600 million for the syria train and equip fund to build the capabilities of a vetted modern

operation to fight isis in syria. $125 million is authorized to help lebanon and jordan to secure their borders against isis. the bill in addition includes funding for an initiative to expand the u.s. military presence and exercises eastern europe reassuring allies and countering the threat of warfare tactics like those used by russia in the crimea and ukraine. the bill also authorizes military assistance in ukraine including lethal assistance, to build capability through the ukrainian security forces to -- with respect to counternarcotics which is another national security threat, the bill expands an existing authority to permit counter narcotics assistance to the governments of

tanzania and somalia. this expansion would allow for additional nonlethal assistance to those nations as they combat illicit trafficking in the region. and in latin america the bill would extend the authority to provide assistance to support the unified counterdrug and counterterrorism campaign of the government of colombia. this assistance remains a key element of our bilateral security cooperation with colombia and enables the commander of southcom to provide critical enabling support upon request. the bill also provides an additional $50 million to address unfunded priorities identified by southcom, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, as well as maritime interdiction support operations in central america. and as the chairman indicated the bill adds over $400 million in additional readiness funding for the military services across all branches, active, guard and reserve.

these increases will provide resources for crucial programs aimed at improving our military readiness in many areas including depot readiness flying operations, cyber training reducing insider threat attacks behavioral health counseling and other important programs. with respect to our nuclear deterrence the committee's bill fully authorizes the programs for modernizing our triad of sea ground and airborne platforms. the last b-5 was produced in the 1960's and by the time the long-range strike bomber,about it's replacement begins to be fielded in the mid 2020's, the b-52 will be flown in some cases by the grandchildren of its first pilots. turning to the undersea deterrence the current highway class submarine which will carry two-thirds of our strategic arsenal is to be replaced by the

highway replacement submarine. if we are to maintain a sea-based deterrent the fleet of 14 subs must be replaced starting in 2027 due to the potential for hull fatigue. by then the first ohio sub will be 46 years old. the oldest submarine to have sailed in our navy in its history. now, the third aspect of our triad, your land behaved icbm's will not need to be replaced by the 2030 time frame. we have authorized a concept for replacement of this leg of the triad which acts as a counterbalance to russian icbm's. as secretary carter noted in his confirmation hearing our nuclear deterrent forms the bedrock of our defense posture. this is an essential mission which must not be neglected. inner the a of technology and innovation i'm pleased this

bill takes a number of steps to ensure d.o.d. has access too the most innovative minds in the patient and strengthen in-house laboratories. it increases funding for university research programs as well as authorizing $400 million to support secretary carter's effort to identify and fund new technologies that will help offset the advancing military capabilities of peer nations and invests in technologies like lasers unmanned systems and undersea warfare. the bill also supports the d.o.d. laboratory enterprise by improving their ability to attract and hire the world's brightest scientists and engineers. these labs help d.o.d. act as smart buyers in the most advanced weapons systems on the planet and often -- and often are underappreciated for their endeavors. it improves their ability to build world-class infrastructure, encourages them

to hire selective students from friendly foreign nations and strengthens their ability to partner with industry, allowing small businesses to have access to the great intellectual property coming from d.o.d. labs as well as access to the research and technical equipment. i believe these policy changes and funding increases will continue to strengthen the technological dominance of our military forces while reducing the cost to build and maintain the weapons system in the future. and they're also specific recommendations on programs that will help the department cope with shortfalls such as providing an additional 12 f-18 superhornets for the navy and additional six f-35 for the marine corps. these will help deal with the department of navy shortfalls in strike fighter aircraft, adding $800 million in virginia class advanced procurement to provide

flexibility to begin bolts with enhanced payload module and to help mitigate pressure on shipbuilding funds coming from the highway class replacement program. accelerating several other ship programs including amphibious assault ships the dock landing ship replacement the next afloat forward staging base, the new salvage ship slash fleet tub replacement and the landing craft utility replacement. as the chairman indicated, this bill also includes critical authorities for our men and women in uniform. they are the heart and soul of our military. all the equipment in the world as sophisticated as it is, will make the difference that the young men and women who wear the uniform of the united states make each and every day. and so this bill includes a 1.3% pay raise for most service members. reauthorization of over 30 types of bonus it's and special pays

to encourage enlistment and reenlist interim and funds to health care for the retirees. it includes a benefit compensation reform either requested by the department or recommended by the military compensation and retirement modernization commission that help to ensure the long-term viability of the all-volunteer force. for example, the bill includes a new retirement system for service members joining after january 1, 2018 as recommended by the commission. which grandfathers in the current force. for most service members this new system will provide a greater benefit at less cost to the government and will address perhaps the grossest neck advertise of the current -- inequities as highlighted by the chairman. the fact that 83% of service members leave military service with no retirement benefits at all. and this is especially

challenging, difficult in some cases even galling for those who have deployed multiple times and leave the service simply because they cannot endure the strain any longer, we essentially ask them to choose between retirement benefits or their mental health or the unity to their family. under the new system contained in our bill, anyone who completes two years of service will be eligible to walk away with something. notably, the bill does not include the overhaul of the tricare system recommended by the commission. and we have heard from the president with respect to tricare and agree these recommendations require more study. these reforms are vital in a budget constrained environment with hard spending caps. it is critical that we strike the right balance between the military compensation package that provides a high quality of life for military families and training and modernization funding that provides a high quality of service and a ready

force. as senior department officials have testified if we don't have enough funding to provide our troops the latest technology and the training they need, we are doing them a disservice and when we send them into harm's way under these conditions, that disservice quickly translates into a breach of trust. the department has assumed approximately $1.7 billion in savings in its 2016 budget related to benefits proposals and $25.4 billion over the entire fit-up. the committee supported these proposals and has redirected that funding to readiness and modernization accounts to restore those deficits. difficult choices need to be made and this bill makes them. we might not yet have it perfectly right but as we move through the legislative year, we will continue to work to ensure that we pay our service members a fair wage by delivering the training and equipment necessary to succeed.

this bill begins a process long overdue for reviewing different options, for example for providing the commissary benefits to our service members, another important aspect of quality of life. and including one of these options, at least is consideration of privatization. and i understand that some members may have some difficulties supporting these provisions but the bill simply requires a number of studies to generate and evaluate new ideas and a pilot program to test them without requiring the actual privatization of the system. this is an experiment which i think is worth conducting and i believe the chairman's leadership on this point was extraordinary valuable. the bill also addresses the department's management of its civilian worse force in two ways one of which i agree with and one of which raises some questions. we've long heard from the department it lacks authorities to manage its civilian work

force. this bill includes new authorities which will enable civilian managers to effectivelily retain their best-performing employees while divesting their poorest. these reforms while painful for some, are sensible and necessary. however, this bill also mandates a management headquarters reduction of 7.5% in 2016 and 30% over four years. and i am concerned that such a deep and at this point generalized cuts to sitting work force may create more problems than it will solve. i'm hoping that we can take a more careful approach to headquarters reform and look forward to working with my colleagues on this issue as we move through the floor and through the conference to final passage. again, as the chairman highlighted, this bill also contains roughly 50 provisions on acquisition reform and i commend the chairman for his efforts. the provisions will help

streamline acquisition processes, allow d.o.d. to access commercial and small businesses and improve the acquisition work force. they build on the success of reforms laid by chairman mccain and the chairman levin in the weapons systems acquisition reform act of 2009. i did have concerns on one provision this year and i thank the chairman for working with me to address it. and i am sure that we will be continuing this discussion of acquisition reforms throughout the year and into the future. i expect the department of defense will have some concerns over provisions as well. so i look forward to working with the chairman and soliciting the best advice from acquisition experts in the government and industry so that we can continue to improve our stewardship of taxpayers' dollars and deliver the best technologies to our fighting forces. now, let me turn to an area of concern which the chairman has highlighted and which be i will be offering an amendment and that is guantanamo. over the past few years the

senate armed services committee has led the way on guantanamo-related issues giving careful consideration to our detention policies and finding bipartisan solutions. in certain ways, this bill continues that transition on bipartisan progress on guantanamo issues. for example, it includes the authority carried in our bill over the last two years for the secretary of defense to approve the temporary transfer of guantanamo detainees to a military medical facility in the continental united states to provide medical treatment in a life-threatening emergency when it cannot be provided on island without unreasonable or excessive cost. the detainee would be required to return to guantanamo at the conclusion of the medical treatment. most importantly it contains a provision that would clear a path to closing guantanamo, including the option of bringing detainees to the united states for detention civil trial and

incarceration. under this approach, the current prohibition on -- prohibitions on guantanamo transfer would remain in place until the president submits a detailed man on the disposition of these detainees and congress votes under expedited roars to approve that plan. if congress approves the plan and the bans on transfers would be lifted and the president would have the authority to implement this plan for closing guantanamo. i particularly want to thank chairman mccain and senator manchin who worked closely to craft this compromise, which was approved by a significant vote in the committee 19-7. this is an example of bipartisan work at its best. at the same time, on other guantanamo policies i must note that they take us backwards. this is particularly the case with regard to overseas transfers of guantanamo

detainees. not transfers into the united states but to third countries. in the fiscal year 2014 national defense authorization act the committee, granting the secretary of defense more flexible and streamlined authorities for overseas transfers of detainees consistent with our national security interests and with measures to substantially mitigate the risk of guantanamo detainees reengaging in terrorist activities. unfortunately, the bill before us today would undo that progress and reimpose restrictions which date back to 2013 that includes a burdensome check list of certifications that the secretary of defense would be required to fulfill for any overseas transfers and a prohibitions on transfers to any country where there was a prior case of detainee recidivism. these provisions make it nearly impossible to transfer

guantanamo detainees overseas to third party countries. in fact during the three years these certifications were previously in place no detainees were transferred under these certification restrictions. during this period, a total of 11 detainees were transferred out of guantanamo overseas. six under an existing national security waiver, and five under an exception for court order ordered transfers. this is a fraction of the over 30 detainees who have been transferred under the more recent 2014 trance -- 2014 transfer authority. these backward looking restrictions create an unnecessary roadblock for disposing of the 57 detainees currently at guantanamo who have been approved for overseas transfer most of whom were approved nearly five years ago. my hope is we can work with our colleagues across the aisle to craft a compromise that brings us more in line with present

law. finally, i'd like to discuss in more depth the reasons that i was unable to support the committee's bill. and why i think we have to have a very serious debate on the underlying financing of this legislation. our national defense decisions should be based on actual needs, not on spending caps and ways around the spending caps that don't change the b.c.a., simply use a device -- and some have labeled it a gimmick -- to get us money. not to fix the fundamental problem but to get us money. the president's fiscal year budget in 2016 requested $38 billion above the budget control act spending caps.

in fact, senator mccain and i wrote a letter to the budget committee that asked to go above those budget caps because we understand the best is to put within the base funding of the department of defense those functions which are essential not just to the year-to-year operations but to the long-term operation of the department of defense and to our long-term national security. the president requested that this $38 billion as i said, be part of the base. the request for the president also contained as presidential requests have contained since the 2001-2002, o.c.o. funding. o.c.o. funding being for those unique we hope, one off or at least yearly expenditures that we have to make with respect to current operations overseas.

that's why it's called overseas contingent operations. for some time now the president's secretary carter, all of our secretaries secretary gates secretary panetta, secretary hale, have implored congress to end the damaging effects of the budget control act sequester and spending caps. however, this bill following the budget resolution, does not address the b.c.a. issue. instead, it turns to this o.c.o. fund. this transfers $39 from the o.c.o.'s budget to the contingency operations budget leaving the base at surprise surprisingly the b.c.a. level. and it raises several concerns, and i've mentioned these concerns but lit me mention them again. first, adding funds to o.c.o. does not solve it actually complicates the d.o.d.'s budgetary problems.

the defense budget needs to be based on our long-term military strategy which requires d.o.d. to plan at least five years ahead of time. when you're acquiring weapons systems, doug technology innovation investing in programs that are not going to come off the shelf in six months you can't rely on one-year money. it doesn't provide d.o.d. the certainty, the stability it needs. it's got to have money in the base. and this instability can undercut the morale of our troops and their families. if voightal programs are subject to jeer year-to-year that affects the morale and confidence of our military t also affects our defense industry partners.

if their funding is in this category of overseas contingency, that's less certain to them than money that's in the base and will likely remain in the base for the five years or beyond that they need. then the second aspect of this is that our national security is more than just the department of defense. the department of defense is critical you know, and frankly if you ask americans you know, where does our national defense come from, i.t. those men and women in uniform. absolutely true. but we need domestic agencies. we can't defend the homeland without the f.b.i., which is funded through the department of justice, which will not have access direct being access in the way that we're proposing to o.c.o. or the transportation security administration who screens individuals coming into this country. or the customs who additionally

screen people. or the coast guard -- all of these are in department of homeland security. and, furthermore without adequate support for the state department then we can't present the kind of comprehensive approach overseas to national security issues that is essential to success. general james mattis, the chairman and i both know, said if you don't fund the state department full listing then i need to buy more ammunition. there is a simple biotic relationship between our diplomatic activities, our national -- our defense activities our law enforcement activities our treasury activities -- because if we're truly to interrupt these terrorist networks, we have to go after their financing. that's done through the department of treasury. and this whole-of-government

approach to national security has to be recognized. and i.t. not recognized if we allow the budget control act to continue to be operational on the non-defense side but avoid it on the defense side because we have access to those with reduced funds. and i think also, too we're going to see going forward as we've seen before, if we -- and we're saying that this o.c.o. fund something for a year, but i think we're doing a little bit of wink, wink. don't workers we're not worry we couldn't do that. t-and what we're doing though, is we're sort of inviting the ingenius use of o.c.o. funding in the years ahead. i think you'll see increasingly

more esoteric and exotic things in o.c.o. funding because that's where the money is. if you have a program that you need to get funded and have a connection to defense -- and in some conveyings cases doesn't even need a connection to defense. senator mccain and i were chatting at the hearing about the significant amount of medical research that's important to the department of national defense. there is money back in the 1980's for defense spending that wasn't available under on the comedomestic side and that finally found its way in defense. so i think there's several reasons why we have to take a different approach. and my approach in the committee was. the president recognizes we need

these resources for national defense. we recognize we need these veers for national defense. but i believe we should budget honestly and directly and initially that was our approach in the budget committee. late put it in the base, and let's take the president's $50 billion, which is the best estimate by the department of defense on what wree really need for overseas contingencies and let's do that. and so my proposal is certainly just to fence the additional o.c.o. money until we could in fact collectively as a congress, what we have to do and what so many people both sides have argued until we could repeal, reform modify, extend the budget control act much as we did due to the greatests of senator murray and congressman paul rye on ryan, which gave us the head room to actually pass legislation, not just the department of defense but in other agencies, that allowed us

to continue the work of the government and allowed us to protect the nation. my proposal in the committee did not succeed but i will renew that request. we have, i think made great progress in the legislation. i think the last step is to get us into the position where we have essentially recognized that the b.c.a. caps has to be limited. i'll conclude simply by first commending the chairman for all they've done to get us here. but, second, to repeat what has been said to us by every military leader: what is their first request? and it wasn't for more o.c.o. money. their first request was eliminate b.c.a. caps, eliminate the threat of conservation of sequestration.

if we don't send a strong signal and my proposal would send that strong signal, then i am afraid we're just victims of the calendar. and before we get to the b.c.a., we will have tough choices to make about this bill that we don't have to. so i would urge consideration when the amendment comes up. with that, i would yield back to the chairman. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. cane can i thank the senator -- mr. mccain: i thank the senator from rhode island for his thoughtful analysis of the legislation before us, and again it's been not only a pleasure but an honor for me to have the opportunity to work with him on the issues that are so important to our nation, none more important. mr. president, i am told by the majority leader that he would like to have this legislation

completed by the end of next week. that means that we have a lot of work to do. we already have a number of amendments that have been filed. i would ask my colleagues to have their amendments in hopefully by, say tomorrow afternoon when the senator from rhode island and i will ask unanimous consent that no further amendments be considered. we want to give every senator an opportunity to have their amendments thoroughly vetted and debated and voted on, if that's their desire. that means that we have a lot of work to do, and i think we will be considering an amendment this afternoon from senator portman and we would like to move forward from there.

so i want to ask the indulgence of my colleagues if they do want debate and vote on their amendments that they be prepared to come to the floor to do so. and, again, i am on on filing of amendments, we would like to have all pending amendments in in the next 24 hours so we can have a finite number of amendments for the legislation that is pending today. i want to thank all of my colleagues for their cooperation cooperation. we will look forward to discussion and debate and i'm sure come out with a better result. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. nelson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president i agree with senator reed, the senator from rinchts rhode island, the ranking member. there's a lot of good stuff in here there is budgetary

fakeerifi cannery in here. and -- fakery in in here. and i want to in my words describe this budgetary fakery. but before i do, i want to commend the chairman, senator mcmccain and senator reed for how they have conducted the committee. i want to thank them for their professionalism, and they show how two leaders of opposite parties can get along and we need lord knows a lot more of that around here. and but for this budgetary issue, senator reed and i would be voting for this on the final passage coming out of the committee. i, too, will be supporting senator reed's amendment to try

to straighten out some of this budgetary trickery. and let me say that, in front of our committee, we have had general after general and admiral after admiral and the top enlisted folks have come in and said that sequestration is harming the national security of this country. and when you do that, it puts us at a risk that the american people would find intolerable if they knew what was going on. now, let me see if, in my words that i can describe what this is. after senator murray and

congressman ryan put together a bipartisan budget and for two years this artificial ceiling like a meat ax approach, sequestration across the board was enacted, to be implemented over the next several years -- not a budgetary strategy of program by program but a meat ax approach across the board regardless of the importance of the program -- their bipartisan budget lifted that for two years. we are at the end of that two-year period, so that sequestration is kicking back in. that's why we need to get rid of it. we need to get rid of it not only for defense but non-defense as well. i'll talk about that in a second.

but in defense it now kicks in and limits the overall spending for the department of defense. but we know we have to spend more than that. so this defense bill which senator reid and i voted against takes operational and readiness funds out of the department of defense request, which is a major part of the defense of the country. you want your troops to be operationally ready so that we can fight two wars if we have to simultaneously. but they take that money that funding out of the defense budget and they put it over here

in this special account that is not counted against the budget caps, which is an account for conducting the war originally in iraq then afghanistan and primarily for purposes of funding afghanistan now. now, as senator reid has very appropriately and accurately discussed, if you do that, first of all, this is nothing but budgetary fakery to meet an arbitrary cap on budgets because you're spending a lot more than that ceiling. you're just spending it over here on something that's off budget and the total amount that's moved over is about $39 billion. in that account, there is

approximately $50 billion already for conducting the war in afghanistan. but now we're going to take operational readiness for the entire department of defense and pull it over here. well if we're going to be straight with what we're spending so that we really know what we're spending, why don't we keep it in the budget, let the total budget rise instead of it an artificial ceiling so we know what we're spending. and senator reid is concerned that if you do that and you're spending it over here, then in future years as this continues to stay there we're not going to be able to show that operational readiness is something that ought to be a normal part of the funding of the department of defense as it

has been for years and years. now, that's basically what's going on. military strategy is not just dependent on defense spending but is also dependent on non-defense national security spending which at this point is not even being addressed. what will the generals and admirals tell you? they'll tell you that a strong national economy is one of the most important of all the strengths of our country to be able to project american military strength. and as a result, if we continue to budget like this, not only in defense but in non-defense as well non-defense areas that directly affect defense what do

i mean? the coast guard the c.i.a., the f.b.i. the d.e.a., customs border patrol, air traffic control, t.s.a., all things in the federal government that are going to be under this artificial meat-ax approach of cutting across the board, all of those agencies directly affect the national security. and so what we have been doing is artificially avoiding what is the obvious. it's sequestration. it's this meat-ax cut across the board. so i want us, as we discuss this budget now highlighted first by senator reid it's time for us to start talking about how we're

going to get rid of the sequester. we did it in the bipartisan murray-ryan budget over two yearsing a. we need to do it again. otherwise we're going to be wasting our time working on bills at the end of the day that may well not get the 60 votes to proceed to final passage and/or will have a veto by the president. so we need to fix the budget caps for defense and non-defense spending. if we've got bleeding in an artery we don't need a band-aid mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: mr. president yesterday we passed the u.s.a. freedom act and it was quickly signed by our president because it was so important to put it in

place. and it contained two items that i want to draw particular attention to. one is that there should be no secret spying on u.s. citizens here in the united states of america. and, second, there should be no secret laws here in the united states of america. and these two items are very closely connected together. our nation was founded upon the principles of liberty and freedom. fundamental to the exercise of those principles is the right to privacy, to be free from unreasonable intrusions. and this right is central to all our other rights protected in the constitution, expressly to the freedom of speech, the freedom of assembly, the freedom to petition our government. our sense of privacy is secure in your home, secure with your records; goes back to common law in england.

it was in 1767 that the earl of chatham when he was debating the cider tax said the poorest may in his cottage bid his defiance to all the forces of the crown. his cottage may be frail its roof may shake the wind may blow through it, the storm may enter, the rain may enter but the king of england may not enter. and certainly that is the spirit that infused our fourth amendment of our constitution. that amendment that says the right of the people to be secure in their persons houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated. we need to ensure that our security apparatus our law enforcement, our intelligence officers have the tools that they need to enact the efforts

to keep america secure. but in the process we cannot sacrifice our constitutional rights as american citizens. there should be no secret spying on americans and no secret law in a democracy. so how did we end up in that place, the place that i'm so glad that we took a major stride toward remedying yesterday? and it goes back to section 215 of the patriot act. now, this act was passed after the attacks on 9/11. i wasn't here in the senate, but it said that the government, our government can access business record or tangible things if it shows that there is a statement of facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that those things are relevant to an authorized investigation.

that certainly mimics the second half of the fourth amendment that goes on to say and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized. the responsibility of the government was to prepare a statement of facts that those statement of facts had to show reasonable grounds and had to show that the things sought were relevant to an authorized investigation. each one of those words had a significant influence in constraining the potential for the government to collect business records or particularly as we came to learn to collect phone records on american citizens. however, a problem developed and that is that a secret court was created here in america a secret court called the fisa court, the foreign intelligence

surveillance act court. and that secret court could interpret the common language of a law and its interpretations were not disclosed to the u.s. public. so in that process of taking the language of the law that has a clear set of standards and then interpreting it, the court created secret law secret law that was not disclosed to the citizens of the united states. this is an enormous risk to democracy that a court with no scrutiny and quite tragically no presentation of opposing views from the position presented by the government, what kind of court is it that allows no presentation of an opposing view to the view of the government? that is a court that can create tyranny of the government by

secretly reinterpreting the plain language of the law. and that is exactly what happened. let's think about how this then went forward. back in 2012, in december, i proposed an amendment and that amendment said that there can be no secret law in america. that if the fisa court makes an interpretation of terms that that interpretation of those terms has to be made public. here we have representation of the importance of shining the light on that secret court disclosing to the public how it interprets the law andthereby changes the meaning of the law. and what did this court do? this court tipped those terms

and said authorize investigation , that can mean anything that happens in the future which of course makes that term meaningless. it means that there is no authorized investigation. it's just a fictional possibility of the future, nothing existing right now. and it took the term "relevant," the term "relevant" to authorize investigation and it said relevant is irrelevant. you have to show no connection one or two places removed in order to secure the right to access the papers, the business records, the phone records of u.s. citizens. so this secret court here in america, the fisa court created secret law wiped out the plain meaning of section 215 put its own interpretation in place and told no one.

this is absolutely unacceptable. that's why i put forward the amendment in december 2012 that no secret law amendment that said this is unacceptable that we must have disclosure of what that court finds so that the public can be informed, so that legislators can be informed, so we can have a debate on indeed whether that interpretation is consistent is consistent with what the legislature intended, the u.s. senate and the u.s. house intended, consistent with what the president intended when he signed that law. well that amendment did not get a debate at that time in 2012, but the chair of intelligence pledged to work with me to ask our government to declassify those opinions of the fisa court, and she did and i thank very much the senior senator from california, the chair of intelligence for her help in doing that. and some of those records, some of those opinions, some summaries of the interpretations

of law were declassified. and that was a step forward. but it shouldn't be dependent upon the whim of the executive branch as to where, whether or not secret law exists in our country. so i continue to press forward. and then we had a situation occur and this was when edward snowden disclosed in june 2013 the existence of the cell phone program. i couldn't explain in december 2012 why it was so important to end secret law. but after edward snowden's disclosures, i could explain it. in fact, when the n.s.a., national security agency chief keith alexander was testifying, shortly after that disclosure i proceeded to pull out my cell phone and ask the chief what authorized investigation gives you the authority under section

215 to access my, senator merkley's cell phone records? and he was unable to answer that question but said he would seek legal consultation in order to explain what authorization what investigation showed that there was relevant connection, what statement of facts would justify it. but i never got that answer because there was no answer because the government was collecting everything under this secret reinterpretation of law. so yesterday we ended the era of secret law in america. yesterday my no secret law act was incorporated into the u.s.a. freedom act and was signed by the president of the united states. now, this law says that the executive branch must declassify opinions of the fisa court or if they find that the exact opinion poses security risks

because of details enclosed therein, must declassify summaries or at a minimum must interpretations of law found by the fisa court. and that's the heart of t we're not asking that classified information about facts of a case that could endanger our national security be disclosed. we're asking that interpretations and constructions of law be disclosed so that we have no secret law in america and that is what is required by the act that we passed yesterday. so in conclusion we must not have secret law in america. we must not have a court -- a secret court that has no opposing point of view presented. and when it makes interpretations of law it must be disclosed to american citizens, who have every right

as a citizen to know what the law means and to be able to argue whether they like that interpretation dislike it and think the law should be supported or the law should be changed. may we never again allow a secret court to authorize secret spying on u.s. citizens under the cover of secret law. it's important what we did yesterday, ending no secret law by incorporating the no secret law act into the u.s.a. freedom act. that is important. to paraphrase william pitt, the humblest american, no matter his wealth or her income or his status within the community that no american may be in a situation where he may be un ununable to say to the u.s. government here in my home within these walls however

modest you the government, may not enter. thank you mr. president. mr. burr: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that the senate remain open for at least five additional minutes while i speak. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. burr: mr. president i couldn't let the statements that were just made go without a degree of fact check. there is no secret court. secret court means we don't know it exists. the every member of the united states senate, every member -- every american knows that the fisa court exists. and the fisa court exists because, just like this body, the senate of the united states, when we take up classified, top-secret legislation we shut

these doors we clear the gallery, we cut the tv off because it can't be heard in public. as a matter of fact, every court in the country operates in secret sometimes when they've got sensitive information that can't be shared. i wish my colleague would stay -- which can't be shared can't be shared because it can't be public. there's some things that don't meet that classification and to get up here and talk about secret courts and secret laws, we pass the laws, and the courts enforce the laws, and they're challenged and we've got committees and we've got members that do oversight. and it is unfactual to stand on this floor and say we've got secret courts and secret laws. that's why the senate and the house made a mistake this week. you know, if you really are concerned about privacy, you would be on the floor arguing that we eliminate the cfpb, a

federal agency created -- not even funded by congress -- that collects every piece of financial transaction on the american people today. they get every day to point from credit card companies they get it from the credit bureau, they search the student loan information, and they download all of that into metadata within the cfpb. no member down here complaining about that. that's the greatest intrusion of privacy on the american people that could ever happen, and it was known up front so they made sure it wasn't funded by congress. they made sure we didn't have any oversight responsibilities. that's why they put it under the guidance of the federal reserve. well let me tell you the president of the united states could have ended section 215 at any time. he had the power. but the president understands this program works and that there was public pressure to

move this data from the n.s.a. to the telecom companies, which is probably the greatest concern about privacy than to have this controlled and supervised within the n.s.a. and he mentioned eric snowden a traitor, a traitor to the united states. and he held him up like he was a prize that he had come out with this publicly. how do the american people think when we come out here and take some of the most sensitive information and suggest everybody ought to know it. the american people look at us and ask us, keep us safe. do whatever within the law to accomplish that. and there's one thing that's never been contested on section 215. it lived within the letter of the law or it lived within the letter of the presidential directive. now, we had a debate, and that's behind us. but to come out here and suggest that there's a secret court and

that there's secret laws and that what they did yesterday was they eliminated all that ... no they didn't, because those classified and top-secret documents that go to the fisa court, no administration in their right mind is going to release those publicly. because it puts americans and foreigners at risk. you know, i've tried to share with my colleagues, terrorists are not good people. you can't hug them and all of a sudden change their intent. they want to kill people. and in most cases we don't find them through association with the boy scouts. we find them by associating -- by actually putting agents into a system where they work sources and they collect intelligence. why would we go out and give terrorists the road map of how we do things?

now, i'll end on this: as you can tell, when somebody gets up and talks about something that just is not true it can't go without correction. what we've done the last two months is we've given every terrorist in the world a road map as to exactly how the united states picks up individuals in the united states that might communicate with terrorists abroad. so let me say for the last time, i want to tell you what section 215 did. section 215 was a database that stated to the n.s.a. -- that stayed at the n.s.a. and the only way that that could ever be queried was if we had a foreign telephone number that we knew -- knew -- was a terrorist telephone number. we could go to the fisa court and say, we would like to test this against telephone numbers -- not americans telephone

numbers -- a database that only had telephone numbers the date of the call, and the duration of the call. and the court would give us permission and we were looking to see was there an american telephone number that actually talked to a known terrorist? and if it did we turned it over to the federal bureau of investigation and said, you might want to look at this person. and then they went to a through a normal court process if they wanted to get the name, if they wanted to get additional information. that's what they did. now, some call this an invasion of privacy. i would tell you that that's not the court's interpretation. the courts ruled that when my telephone information goes to a telephone company, i have no expectation of privacy. none. that's law. the reality is that we're collecting telephone numbers. it has no personal identification on it. i don't know how we've breached

the privacy when we don't know who it is. and that threshold is met when the bureau goes to the courts and says that they have a different concern about the individual and the court rules then. but to believe that the fisa court does anything different than the senate of the united states or different than any other court in the country when they're faced with classified and secret information -- and that is that they shut it down -- it's wrong it's just plain wrong. and i.t. important for it's important for the american people to understand there are ramifications to stupid decisions even by congress and it's my hope that this program will work as currently designed but there's mono mistake that we've given terrorists every reason to never use a cell phone or landline again, especially those in our country and intend to carry out some act. somewhat like a gentleman from

boston yesterday who pulled a knife on twosters and just two officers who just wanted toed to talk to him because he'd been on 24/7 surveillance for days. he intended to behead a boston police officer. i think the american people want our law enforcement folks to be in that position. take away their tools and we won't be able to do t what we did yesterday is we took some of the tools away. we didn't take all of them away. my hope is that this body will think clearly in the future about the tools we provide to allow this to happen. i yield the floor. mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator oregon. mr. merkley: mr. president -- the presiding officer: for the senator's information the senate has an order to recess until 2:00 p.m.

mr. merkley: i ask unanimous consent for five minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. merkley: thank you mr. president. when colleagues come to the floor and they contend that there have been no secret courts in america that there has been no secret law in america that the administration of section 215 matched the plain language of the law as adopted by this body they're wropg on all three counts -- wrong on all three counts. when i've completed my remarks i'd be happy to take a question. and so my colleague comes to the floor and says, well, there's no secret law but the fundamental understanding of law is that there is the plain language of the law and there's the interpretation of that by the court. and it is only through the combination of those two things that you can know what a law

means. if you have the plain language but don't have the interpretation that has been assigninged by the courts and used to adjudicate cases then in fact you have secret law because none of us know what the word means. you look at the plain language of section 215 and it doesn't say, here's restrictions on how the government examines a body of information interrogates that body of information anizes that body of analyzes that body of information. no, the language is completely about how the government collects that information whether they can collect that information, and it sets a series of clear standards for collecting that information. it says that information cannot be collected unless there is stated analysis, a set of facts that show that there is evidence that that information being sought is relevant to an

authorized investigation. now, any common citizen knows therefore the government has to do a statement of facts, they have to state what is the specific investigation has that investigation been authorized and is the assorted information relevant that's been requested. relevant is a very powerful term in the law. it means one or two steps removed. and that is exactly what the second circuit found when they looked at this issue just recently. the court's opinion explained that as the program is being implemented, the records demanded are not those of suspects who are under investigation. that would certainly be relevant. or of people or businesses that have contact with suspects under investigation. that's one step removed.

that certainly would be relevant. or even the court went on to say, of people or businesses that have contact with others who are in contact with the subjects. that would be two steps removed and that is stretching the boundaries of what is considered relevant under the definition of the law. the court found that the implementation of the program has extended to every record that exists. and i quote again the court found the implementation of the law extended to every record that exists. so if the implementation by the administration so diverged from the language of the law passed and debated in this chamber how did the government, the executive branch justify it's gross deviation from the plane language of the law? here's how they did it.

they went to a court that had been created the foreign intelligence surveillance act court, and they said we would like to be able to collect all of the information whether or not it's relevant because someday under some situation we may want to analyze that information, and we would like to have it right at hand. now had there been an adversary in this court; the adversary presenting an opposite point of view would say not so quick because there are standards in the case law for relevant. there are standards for what constitutes an authorized investigation. there are certainly standards for what means to present evidence to document this. but there was no contrary opinion in this court because the only one arguing the case with no rebuttal and no

examination by another group was the groft -- the government. you had the government and the judge. that is not really the theory behind courts. the idea is you had an examination of an issue with both sides presented so there can be full articulation and full examination of the issues and then a judge can decide based on full input. but in this case we didn't have that input. the government asked for an interpretation that would allow them to do something far different from the plain language of the law and they got it from this secret court. so yes we do have secret courts operated with no input and disclosed no opinions. and, yes we did have secret law and that ended yesterday as it should. thank you mr. president. mr. burr: would the gentleman yield for a question? mr. merkley: i would yield. mr. burr: i ask for unanimous consent for one additional

minute before the senate adjourns. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. burr: my question of the gentleman would be did he know the fisa court existed? mr. merkley: the existence of the court -- mr. burr: simple, yes or no. did you know the fisa court existed? mr. merkley: you asked the question and i would be happy to answer the question. mr. burr: no, you didn't. regular order mr. president regular order. i don't want to take up any more of the senate's time, and i certainly don't want to take any more of my colleague's time. the fact is he knows the court existed. congress has reauthorized the section 215 of the patriot act. the fisa court has reauthorized it. they reauthorized it. they're asked every 90 days and they ruled 41 times to allow the section 215 to -- mr. merkley: mr. president would my colleague yield to a question? mr. burr: be happy to yield to a question. mr. merkley: were the opinions of this court established by law? and, yes so it's transparent to the public that the court

exists. the question of secrecy is not whether it exists. it is whether the process is open in any feasible way to a debate between two points of view. did you know that the opinions of the court were including interpretation of the law were never disclosed to the american public and were in fact kept secret? mr. burr: i actually do know that. mr. merkley: thank you. that does show -- mr. burr: the gentleman asked his question and i answered, and i still control the time. thank you. mr. merkley: as you -- mr. burr: clearly it's evident that if you say something wrong enough times people start to believe it. it's not a secret court. it's not a secret law. the president knows about it. members of congress knows about it. we voted on it. we know what goes on. 15 members of this body have oversight responsibility over the program. we do our job and we do it well. now, we may disagree with what tools we use to try to defeat r terrorism in this country and clearly you and i have a big canyon between us. but i've got to tell you

america expects the united states senate and the congress of the united states and the president of the united states to defend them. i'm going to continue to do everything i can to make sure law enforcement and the intelligence community has the tools to do their job because their job is a big one and the threat is big and for people to ignore that today is irresponsible. i yield the floor. mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: mr. president the people of the united states expect the constitution to be upheld, the principles of the fourth amendment. they expect the law that is passed on this floor will be implemented in an appropriate fashion consistent. and when it is not our liberty is diminished. our freedom is diminished. our privacy is diminished. indeed what we did yesterday with the u.s.a. freedom act was to end a system in which a court in secrecy changes the meaning of the law and does not disclose to the american public. that is a very important improvement taking us back to the democracy that we are all

part of and that we all love. thank you mr. president. the presiding officer: under the previous order the senate stands in recess until 2:00 p.m. today.

most people assume a remedy would require congressional action and i think there is ample evidence that making a bet in favor of prompt wise and constructive congressional action when it comes to health care. >> i want to follow up on a question. there does seem to be a lot of people inside dod and other military analysts for the progress it has made, that they are able as you have suggested to recruit many things, basically a net zero proposition, if what happened as a result of u.s. policy and coalition efforts in terms of

the number of isis/isil faders it is not the failure of policy. >> we are building of the capacity of iraqi security forces. we anticipate we would see better performance on the battlefield once we introduced more highly trained iraqi security forces, once we had better equipped security forces on the battlefield their performance would improve. we would also see over the course of time improvement in our efforts to coordinate with the international community to counter the radical ideology and recruitment messaging from isil. we also have seen and will improve upon our cooperative efforts to prevent individuals from traveling to that region of the world to take up arms alongside isil. but this is a strategy where we have seen some success and some

setbacks but we would anticipate that we will make progress against isil as we see more and better equipped, better trained security forces in iraq and syria taking a fight to isil on the ground. >> in the battlefield the number recruited is what you would expect to see right now? is that what you are saying? >> no, that is what you are saying is the answer to your question. i think what i would say is we have a strategy debt is correctly oriented toward the situation you present which is we have seen there are a substantial number of fighters fighting under the isil banner in iraq and syria and we laid out a clear strategy for confronting them that is predicated upon iraqi and in serious syrian side is taking the fight underground isil in their own country. we will support them by training them, he put in them, offering

advice in terms of how to carry out military operations and back and with television military airpower. the other thing is to shutdown isil's financing shut down their recruitment efforts and try to counter the radical message king of isil to make it harder for them to bring in recruits and so far we have seen isil demonstrate willingness to sacrifice their soldiers on the battlefields in pursuit of military operations that don't end going their way. we acknowledge much more important and difficult work to be done to accomplish our ultimate goal of degrading and destroying isil. >> a question, the testimony today in congress on those in this country feeding on isis

propaganda through social media. are you confident that the administration has the tools in need to keep track of those in the united states radicalized by isis propaganda? >> you heard from law-enforcement national security professionalss that this is very difficult work and the president himself was observed on previous occasions that the threat he is particularly worried about is but wolf trap. and individuals that the deradicalize, carry out an operation of their own doing that would result in violence and trying to prevent that is exceedingly difficult and in some ways all the more reason we are gratified the senate finally did pass the u.s. a freedom act to assure u.s. officials have the tools they say are important to keep the country safe. >> they don't have the tools

dealing with the renewal of parts of the patriot act. the head of the counter terrorism division of the fbi today saying one of the big problems they are facing is the availability of new encryption technology and they are in the dark, those were his words, in the dark, pleading for new authorities from congress. what is the position on this? thousands every day are feeding on isis propaganda in this country and they don't have the authority to keep track of them. >> this is a challenge. >> not the patriot act. >> this is a challenge the president is mindful of. and opportunity to talk with us a little bit when prime minister cameron was in the white house earlier this year. has this does set up a tough challenge, balancing the privacy needs of law-abiding american citizens with the need for us to

try to detect and apprehend terrorists before they commit an act of violence. that is why the president has spoken to this and something we are mindful of and you are right that the other challenge presented here is when we talk about technology we are talking new innovations and it means the techniques that are employed by national security professionals need to adapt to the innovations in the technology sector and that is the very difficult challenge but it is one that the president's team is focused on and there is an opportunity in the mind of the president to work with tech sector on this. as much as they value and can be in the privacy and civil liberties rights of american citizens we also know those individuals do not want to be in

that situation where their technology is responsible for allowing somebody seeking to carry out an act of violence evade detection from the federal government. this is the very 40 policy challenge and maybe even among the most difficult challenges the president faces but it is one or he is mindful of that has been working on and one that we should be able to manage our way through if we try to seize the common ground consistent with the way the house of representatives and the senate acted to despite the difficult challenges of reauthorize in the patriot act and incorporating important reforms that require people to put aside politics, focus on those areas where we agree and do what is right for the country and even after an inexplicable delays by the senate that was achieved and that i do think absent a deal l.a. does serve as our model for how to work our way through these other particularly

difficult policy issues. >> the president's political theme the polling. >> certainly through the dnc and other places the president has access to polling information. i would not say he is a frequent consumer but he has access to some of that data. >> you must be aware of some trends. >> i am not aware of any recent democratic polls measuring the favorability of president bush. >> the handling of isis at 31% is a pretty alarming number. add the noticed? >> not really. i think it is common sense that the fact that the united states government and the president is confronting this threat is difficult work and the american

people understand what a significant challenge this is but everything else being equal they prefer that the president and the united states didn't have to worry about isil but the fact is we do and the fact is the president is very focused on national security threats. and that is why we have implemented the strategy we have. this is something that was not done in a way that reflects polling. it was done in a way that reflects national security interests of the united states. april. >> ten years and a couple months, will mark ten years since the levees broke in new orleans and brian nestande the secretary is going down there and working down there. is the president expected to go

to new orleans in august for the anniversary of katrina? >> i don't know the answer to that. scheduling updates in august, we will let you know. >> what if anything can you tell us? president obama, there were two series he was looking at in a different way. they ten new orleans and new orleans added coming back on its own and so did detroit and they fell into the same part of others. what can you say about how the administration is doing after katrina? >> a couple things about this. the first is one of the things the president did when he took office was appointed craig fugat fugate to run fema and the people's faith was shaken in the government's ability to react to the emergency situations and because of the professionalism

and experience of someone like that the confidence has been restored. the president made that a priority and having had the opportunity to travel with the president when he visited some communities across the country that were racked by a national disaster. .. the efforts to prevent a second great depression and for the

president to pursue our nation's good interests around the globe there hasn't been as much talk about how effectively that particular agency has rehabilitated not just its image but their operations in a way that is profoundly affected the lives of thousands if not millions of americans. as it relates to new orleans more specifically we will have i'm confident a lot more to say about this and on this as the anniversary gets closer. but i can tell you that the president and his team has been a longtime working with officials in new orleans to help that the city recover from the worst economic downturn since the great depression that we've seen housing officials officials from the department of labor and others talk about the work that the administration is doing in that community to help them continue to recover. again not just from the floods of katrina from 10 years ago but also from the economic downturn five years ago.

one thing we know from the data is that those individuals who are the most vulnerable in 2007-2008 for the individuals who were hit hardest by the great recession. and that means individuals in new orleans that were recovering from the terrible natural disaster were hit by the great recession probably at the worst possible time. first off it's a testament to the great determination of the people of new orleans to rebuild the city and rebuild their economy, rebuild so many of those communities are rich in history and in character to put it mildly. but it also is an indication of the kind of resilience we see all across the country. there is a broader american story to tell about the renaissance that we are seeing in new orleans. it was not the president travels to the committee are not in the last weekend in august i suspect you would've more from the president about this as the

anniversary gets closer. >> candidates on both sides of the i'll have been talking about the concern they have a financial crisis with heroin prescription drugs. talking about what they would do what they might respond policies if they were president or the president still has the chopper 18 months. is he persuaded by this commentary coming out of primary states that there is more this administration could do to tackle heroin prescription drugs and mental health issue? >> is is a growing challenge in many communities across the country. and i know that the ondcp under the acclaimed leadership of mr. botticelli has done a lot of work in this area. i think what i should do that so many follow-up with you with more specifics of what the administration has done to address this growing problem and what more we propose to do to try to head it off.

i feel confident in predicting this is not a problem to solve in the next 18 months, i do think the president would like to see additional progress being made in a really important way. >> a follow up on isil. [inaudible] >> we have seen some of those news reports suggesting that there may come in some locations industry, not all of them but in some location in syria that government forces may be acting in a way that actually benefiting isil forces. we also see reports that the are some other areas in syria where assad government forces are taking strikes against isil forces. so the very murky picture right now but that's indicative of a broader situation that we see inside syria that frankly it's because of failed assad regime

that they have, that extremists have been able to make inroads in that country and that's why it continues be the policy of the united states that president assad should step aside and allow for a political transition in that country so that they get leaders in a country that reflects the views of come and conditions of extreme people. that's the only way we're going to put them into the violence inside that country. it's going to be a long road even if assad surprise lake announces that he will be leaving now would be a rather long road. but an announcer like that from president assad would odyssey be a very good start. >> josh i was at a security event this morning and the gentleman who works with the fbi and other agencies said look we've always been one step behind tracking the bad guys. i now feel like we are too maybe three steps behind the bad

guys. just to play off of john's comment, is the fbi more into dark ever before. tell you nation's good has enhanced given the comment like this. this. >> i didn't see the comments and i didn't see the setup but i will say as a general matter it sounds like somebody was winning in any discussion of some the challenges that our law enforcement professionals face as they try to keep us safe. there is no doubt there are significant challenges, and that's why there's a lot of frustration on the part of the administration that there were simple steps that congress could take but didn't, that would have ensured that they've all the tools of able to them as they tried to keep us safe. we are pleased to see that even belatedly the senate did act that the authorities have been restored in a reformed away but this is a difficult challenge. the president is mindful of this challenge. the president's budget

priorities reflect how significant the challenge of this is and it's something he devoted significant time to everyday. >> the question again is national security enhanced or not? yes or no? >> it's heartening to evaluate it without seeing with the comments were and what context they speak the comments was the fbi said were more into dark than ever -- >> no need to get hostile about it. we can have a discussion. >> the fbi counterintelligence guys said we are more into dark than ever before. this does not suggest -- >> i think reflects the challenges that are faced by greater encryption technology that has been developed that is allowing some extreme is to try to evade detection by law enforcement authorities, and this does pose a significant challenge and this is a challenge the president discussed in a news conference he convened with prime minister cameron. he visited the white house earlier this year. the president continues to be unaware of this threat and he also continues to be mindful of

the fact that additional work needs to be done to confront it. and to continue to be confident even tech companies that are sort of standing at the forefront of try to protect the civil liberties of the american people and their customers would not want to be in a position which the technology is being deployed to aid and abet somebody who's going to carry out an act of violence. so there is an opportunity for us to try to resolve this very difficult challenge. angela? >> thanks, josh. i want to follow up on the question on the table. you said you don't have account figures but want to take us back to you have the vote count. i ask that because there've been some reports from the hill from both sides of the aisle that they don't have vote counts from the other side very little information sharing even back channels. if you guys to confident in the transparency on how that vote might go? >> i would say we do continue to be confident in the kind of working relationship that the

administration maintains with leader pelosi on the democratic side. obviously most of our efforts are targeted on trying to persuade democratic house members to support this particular piece of legislation and there have been a number of conversations between the president and individual democrats in the house. driven conversation between the president and leader pelosi on this issue here and yes we do continue to a lot of confidence in the effectiveness of that relationship, but i would also point out that the white house and even the president has been in touch with republicans in the house on this issue. speaker boehner has indicated he strongly supports this legislation. we know that chairman ryan is also playing a leading role in billy support among house republicans in that effort. and despite our many political differences and despite the many challenges that we've had been working with leading house republicans on other issues, i

do i do think i can confidently say that we have been pleased with the effective communications between the white house and leading house republicans on this issue, too. and i think it is an example of the kind of progress that we can make when we are focused on those areas where we agree. there are many areas where we disagree, and our ability to coordinate in this area doesn't change that. but it does highlight the potential that exists when we focus on working cooperatively on finding common ground. now, i don't want to leave again, have those comments leave you with the impression because it's all so do. there's a lot of work to be done on this, but i continue to be and i think i feel confident in telling you that we continue to be satisfied with the degree of cooperation and communication we've received with both democratic and republican house leaders on this issue.

>> one also from the pentagon. there was a report out this morning that stated that iran is still found to be developing ballistic technologies. [inaudible] on the nuclear agreement details that's a concern because -- carry a nuclear warhead theoretically. is that reports of you think will pose a challenge for getting that deal done because i haven't seen the details of the reporter i will observe a couple of things. one thing we've indicated would need to be result in the context of these discussions are the outstanding questions that the possibly military dimensions of iran's nuclear programs. we continue to be concerned. there are many unanswered questions and we would expect those questions would be answered in the context of a final agreement if one can be reached by the end of june. that said we've also been just as forthright about the fact that even if we are able to successfully complete negotiations at the end of june,

it will not answer all of the questions that we have about iran's questionable behavior in that region of the world, that includes some component of the military program. and we've been pretty blunt about that fact and that's why you've heard me disagree been somebody, when some have described as as a rapprochement with iran. this would not be that but it would be a way for us to diplomatically prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon okay? >> understands the prime minister is it i thought it was a request of -- [inaudible] who is he meeting with? >> it's my understanding he, because the vice president is not here today for obvious reasons that a serving prime minister did at the meet with susan rice and we will have some more details about those conversations for you later today.

>> is there any specific one topic, ma or is it -- >> i think they discussed a range of issues but we will see if we can teach more details about the need meeting at the end of the day. [inaudible] >> i don't believe the president dropped by that meeting. >> josh, i want to take you back to trade for just a moment earlier today. more than a dozen democrats came on camera and expressed their displeasure with the idea of tpa, and i'm just, or it seems to me to be a little bit of democratic friendly fire. what does that say about the president relationship with the party that so many especially so many top democrats are so forcefully against tpa? >> kevin i think belichick something that we all know which is many democrats in congress are opposed to trade legislation to impose reflectively because of the impact of previous trade agreement. the case the president has made with some success is that this kind of trade agreement is one that includes for the first time

an enforceable labor standard, enforceable environmental standards, and human rights standards that are written into the agreements that will level the playing field and have a positive impact on the american economy and on the economic opportunity that is available to middle-class families across the country. that is a persuasive argument. i don't expect that it will persuade every single democrat to support it but we did see that when the president was given the opportunity to make this argument to members of the senate, and we got about a third of senate democrats to vote for this bill. and where communication -- a similar case in house. i don't know if you get up to the one-third level but it is an indication when we make the argument that there's ample reason for progressives in congress to support the bill. >> one big name yet to come out in support of it is secretary of state hillary clinton, former secretary of state. would it matter either way if she came out in support of tpa or tpp for the president's

because well she doesn't have a vote in congress and so it's the votes in congress we are counting right now. that's what the focus of our efforts are on members of the united states house of representatives principally democrats but our conversations were having with republicans as well. >> would it matter at all? which he cares because she will have to make her own decision in terms of what she wants to say about that. >> let me ask you about wikileaks wanting to outsource about $100,000 to have people release details of tpp. are you aware of that report coming reaction to the white house have? >> our reaction is just simply that there is no tv agreement right now. we are working to finalize one. and when we have when it will be made public and the public the american public will have an opportunity to review the agreement and to speak their mind about it for two months prior to the president's signature. and even after the president signs it, to be a robust public

debate indicated congress about the wisdom of this approach and the wisdom of entering into this agreement. the president continues be confident if we are able to reach an agreement that will be consistent with the trade promotion authority legislation that is already passed the senate and hopefully will soon pass the house but it will be ample opportunity for the american public to look at the details of this agreement and to consider, and to make up their own mind frankly, about what impact it would have on the american economy. byron? >> thanks, josh. we see reports the white house is reviewing ice is a strategy update on what would like to from the president about any changes or updates. >> no. and i would remind you that the way the we have described the policymaking process is simply that the president challenges his national security team to continually be refining that strategy come to looking at areas where we made progress to extract some lessons learned

that can be applied to those areas where expensing some setback. and that's part of an ongoing robust policymaking process. i wouldn't expect any major presidential announcement on this in the near future but i think you can expect the president will continue to engage in regular discussions with his national security team about how we can continue to refine the strategy and continue to build on the momentum where we are seeing progress and shore up our efforts where we are seeing some setbacks spilled onto iran negotiations is there a plan in place for do with all that there is parties but has concerns about final agreement or concerns on the gulf state allies israel, many in congress? what is the white house plan for approaching this? >> i think you've seen a lot of that plant already. just in the last few weeks of the president and his team have engaged with democrats and republicans in the congress about the merits of the political agreement that was already reached back in the first week of april.

using the president convened a summit with the gulf leaders at camp david just last month where they had a discussion at the wide range of security issues in the region of the world, including efforts to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon but i would expect those conversations would continue. the president i think has been pretty forthright about his efforts to communicate with those who are most concerned about israel's security, about how he behaves the security interests of israel can be best served by using diplomacy to prevent iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. this is a case and we've been engaged in making for quite some time, and i would anticipate that we'll have the opportunity to do it again if we are able to reach an agreement in the last month of june -- the last part of june. [inaudible] the white house memo that requires white house counsel review of all foia related to

the white house that's responsible for being federal backlog in foia. does the white house agree with the? why is the counsel review in foia? is was a policy in place in the previous administration spent its interesting you say that it actually do have a quote from a memo that was put forward by stephen marcum come september 1, 1988, we had to dig way keeping our guys to come up with that whether it's a record originated with the involving the white house office should be afforded to the office of the counsel to the president for any recommendation or comments may wish to make final -- stephen marcum was a senior justice official in the reagan administration. january 1992 a gentleman named stephen slush and your who's a senior department of justice official and the bush administration said the records originating with or involving the white house office should be forwarded to the office of the counsel to the president for any comments they wish to make prior to final response to the

requester. this is indication the policy has been in place at least as relates to recent presidential republican, to recent republican presidents. and so i would make a case to you that the memo that has ben franklin decided on capitol hill and the last couple days is atomic assist with the policies i were in place under president reagan and the first president bush. and at the same time the suggestion that this memo or this policy has created an anti-backlog i don't think is -- undue backlog is reflected in the fact the effect is the administration process last year 634,000 foia requests. the fact that 91% of those requests did result in the release of some for all of the

requested information, that is an indication this administration's commitment to responding in full as often as possible to foia requests. i also recognize that there's a tendency on the part of those who submit foia request to focus on the 90% that didn't get satisfactory sponsors, and that's the job of those individuals. but their criticisms do not reflect the evidence, the achaemenid evidence about our commitment to the foia process okay? david jackson, last one. >> getting back to free trade. it's not just economic but political but as you note the unions and other groups are threatening democratic members to oppose are withholding their money if they vote for a fast-track authority is the president talking to members about that and promising political? >> the president has made very clear in public and private and willingness to do with democrats who stand with him on the trade argument.

and considering the president's status among democratic voters across the country, i read one recent poll that indicated the president was the most popular and influential and well liked figure in democratic politics right now. so having something which presidents have on your side i think is a political significant benefit of that is the promised the president has made to democrats who are willing to support the most progressive trade legislation that the senate has ever passed. and i think that should give all democrats the confidence to vote their conscious when it comes to this issue. >> what about the political threads? >> it not something they keep the up and i but, of course, my name is not on about the those were concerned about to take a lot of solace in knowing that they can count on the support of president barack obama at the democratic primary if they need. all right? things everybody. -- thanks everybody.

>> the senate is in recess for individual party lunches. the senate armed service committee chair john mccain and ranking member jack reed talking to the respective caucasus to date on the defense authorization bill for debate on the measure expected when senators return come scheduled to come back from reset at 2:00 eastern live on c-span2. until then a short portion of today's "washington journal."washingt journ >> host: we are joined now by congress thomason massey oversight government reform transportation infrastructure as well. is a comment on the journal. let's talk about this in is a debate and you in the senate chamber when senator rand paul along with your colleague sitting back in the chamber watching the senator filibuster this legislation usa freedom act in the patriot act provision to keep in with him along the ride.

what did he accomplish in the and? usa freedom act passed in the senate and the president signed into law. >> guest: that's a good question. we are asking that, too. what did we accomplish? one very amazing thing he accomplished is he got 20 of his colleagues to change their position just by holding his ground. the first about to proceed with the freedom act in the senate only garnered 57 votes. that's before the recall recess, and then they came back and it eight hours to solve the problem. and rand paul stood his ground. they would into the expiration period, at which point the senator the majority leader also from our state said you know what, i guess we do the freedom act now. and 77 senators voted for the freedom act at that point so that's quite amazing for one senator to get 20 senators to flip their position in a week host to let me read the

financial times editorial on this. rand paul stand against the u.s. surveillance state and this is what they write. to lawmakers like itself and the senator. if congress wishes to preserve the agencies leeway under tighter safeguards it must take more seriously its constitutional role of redoing the operations behind closed doors. there is little sign is prepared to take that role more seriously. mr. paul's fundraising antics may or may not enhance his chances winning the republican nomination. but there must be better ways of protecting u.s. liberty then this. the senator should spend less time in front of the camera and more time holding the agency to account in their day-to-day operationoperation s. that is the role of a legislator. >> host: >> guest: there's a point in the article i would like to comment on the some people say that senator paul do this to raise money, to get attention? if you have no senator paul for any length of time you know this is his issue. this is completely in his

wheelhouse civil liberties. in fact, in 2010 when he ran in the republican primary in a state of kentucky to become our senator this is what differentiated him from the other candidate that was really the establishment pick. senator paul said you've got to respect all of the bill of rights not just the second amendment which is one of the favorites for republicans. eke out respect the first fourth amendment and when i ran for congress in 2012 my pushcart i headed out i had fixed the economy, lower taxes instead of things. i had this thing i put on the visit repeal the patriot act. most people didn't know what the patriot act was, and he looked at my pushcart and discard -- is the sky and patriotic? so for folks like senator paul and myself this has always been an issue for us. it's not something we are doing for attention or to raise money. >> host: he did raise money off of filibustering the patriot

act. was that appropriate? >> guest: clearly -- >> "washington journal" on everyday seven in eastern we leave this as the senate has returned from recess for more debate this afternoon on the defense authorization bill. live coverage on c-span2. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you mr. president. mr. president, i'm here this afternoon to talk about an issue that is so important to my state and in communities nationwide, and that is how do we help children and families rebuild and recover when they have faced serious trauma? as we have seen all too often in recent years traumatic events have impact children at any time and in any part of our country. if children don't get the support they need in the wake of a hardship like a natural disaster or violence at school or stress related to a family member's military deployment,

those experiences can be even more difficult to recover from, and they can leave our children with serious and long-lasting challenges like depression and anxiety and difficulty maintaining employment. mr. president, an estimated two-thirds of our children experience traumatic events before the age of 16. their need for support and treatment after trauma is one that simply cannot go unmet and that is why i'm very proud to be here today to introduce the children's recovery from trauma act. this bipartisan legislation would continue support for child trauma centers across the country which helps makes sure that as children and families face difficult times our nation's health care system is better prepared to provide support and help ease that burden. child trauma centers have played an important role in my home state of washington. for example when state route

530 mudslide caused unthinkable devastation in oso and darington, the washington state university clear center stepped in to help children and families who were impacted by that horrific tragedy. staff at the clear center held parent nights at daringson elementary school and worked with the teachers there to help make sure students got the right kind of support they needed. they even helped teachers explain to students how the brain operates under stress and how that might influence their behavior. as a mom and a former preschool teacher and a school board member and a senator from the great state of washington, i believe this support can make a world of difference in this kind of scary and stressful time for our kids. i'm very proud that under the children's recovery from trauma act, the clear center would continue to receive critical federal investments. in addition, i'm very proud

other child trauma centers such as those that mobilized after the 2001 terrorist attacks or natural disasters like hurricanes katrina and sandy and the shootings at virginia tech and newtown would continue to get those investments as well. as i have said before, i am so inspired by the strength and the resilience of communities in washington state who are impacted like the -- by the tragedy on state route 530 mudslide and the shootings recently at mariesville pilchek high school. communities like these who face hardships can't always be predicted or prevented but they do need our support. the children's recovery from trauma act would take some critical steps forward in this effort and i hope all of our colleagues will join me in supporting it. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: mr. president, i ask the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: mr. president i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. ms. cantwell: thank you mr. president. i come to the floor -- i know we're talking about the defense bill and i know my colleagues are trying to work out things as it relates to the defense bill, but i am just as concerned about the reauthorization of the export-import bank, a credit agency that helps small businesses in the united states of america that is expiring at the end of this month june 30. as we had discussions on the

trade promotion authority act i was very concerned that we were going to be passing trade policy at the same time while allowing very important trade tools to expire. i still remain very concerned that small businesses who are here in the capitol today and have given much testimony at various hearings yesterday with the senate banking committee and today in i think the house financial services committee about the need for this type of credit agency that helps small businesses ship their products to other countries that are new market opportunities for them. the reap why this is so -- reason why this is so important is because other countries have credit agencies, if you will, credit insurance. you're a small business. you want to get your product sold in developing markets. you can't find conventional banking, or actually you can find conventional banking but that bank says i'm not going to assure these losses, and so thus

has emerged for the united states of america europe, china, asia, many parts of the world what is called credit insurance. that credit insurance takes conventional banking and says we will help secure that loan so if you're a manufacturer in, say columbus ohio making machinery and you're selling that in china, you actually have an opportunity to sell that product, use commercial banking in ohio, have that guaranteed through credit insurance and a lot of business gets done on behalf of the united states of america. we know this well in the pacific northwest was we do a lot of international trade. there's a lot of companies that have learned that the best way for them to grow small business is to become an exporter. so yes it may have started with our agricultural economy where people started trading our agricultural product but many of

our agricultural markets are big export markets washington wheat, 90% of it is exported, obviously people know a lot about aerospace and the fact that the aerospace market is also an export market but what people don't realize is a lot of small businesses also became exporters and they understood that the big market opportunities that are out there for their products are in growing economies around the globe. in fact, there's going to be a doubling of the middle class around the globe in the next several years there's huge opportunities as those economies have higher income individuals to sell products and services, so it's natural for us to want to increase exports. that's why the president has an initiative to double exports over the last several years i think he set it for a five-year period and we've made good progress towards that growth in exports, and so it really remains one of the biggest economic opportunities for our country and if i could have a

couple of charts here, remains one of the biggest economic opportunities for our country is to have u.s. companies grow jobs by becoming exporters. so the -- the export bank costs zero to the u.s. treasury. in fact, it actually generates money to the u.s. treasury. so the notion we would let a tool of the american economy which literally helps us grow small businesses in the united states and throughout our country expire when it actually generates money to our economy and costs us nothing is something that is pretty hard to believe. in fact, i don't know where my colleagues are going to come up with the money to pay for the $670 million hole that you'll have in the treasury if you

don't do the export-import bank because it has been a great tool for growing that economy. and what we've heard from small businesses now is that they're actually seeing their deals affected. they're in the process of trying to negotiate with a country maybe it takes months and months to negotiate a final sale, and they're showing up for these negotiations and the businesses are saying we're going to go and buy from somebody else. we're not going to buy from you, u.s. manufacturer, we're going to buy from an asian manufacturer because it's clear their are credit insurance companies still work and we don't have to wait, we don't have to wait for the uncertainty of the united states senate or the house of representatives and so we're going to go ahead and do that, that business deal with you. in fact, we have u.s. manufacturers here on the hill today saying they are losing business because the u.s. senate won't vote on the reauthorization of the export-import bank.

so we worked very hard during this trade discussion to guarantee that we could get a vote on the export-import bank before june 30 on a vehicle mutually agreed not to by the supporters here of the export-import bank and senator mcconnell, the senate leader and i think what we're saying is we don't believe that the defense authorization bin bill is that vehicle. obviously, the defense information bill -- authorization bill under criticism by the white house and threating to be vetoed is not going to be done any time soon certainly not before june 30 and that is the when the bank expires. so to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who continue to hide behind the heritage foundation and won't declare whether they support the export-import bank or don't support the bank, the attempt to put it on another vehicle that's not going anywhere is not going to help american businesses and the american economy.

the export-import bank in the state of washington has helped generate $102 billion in exports and has helped over 230 exporters in our state. those companies have grown their businesses and we've heard from one, in fact, there's a web site you can go to, manhattan music company who make music stands, you can hear about how they've grown their business around the globe because they've used the export credit agency, and they don't understand why this agency is about to collapse and they're concerned about their business. what we hear from a lot of businesses is if this credit agency is curtailed which is the wish and desire of the heritage foundation a group and organization that doesn't even support our export agenda, basically that about 25% of their businesses on average are related to their export market. and they say that about roughly

25% of their employees will then end up being laid off as those business deals are unwound over the next several months. that means they won't be able to keep and retain current workers. so my colleagues on the other side of the aisle by refusing to bring up the export-import bank on a vehicle before the end of june that could be voted on by the house of representatives are literally saying to small businesses across america go ahead and lay off workers we don't care. now, the reason why i've been so passionate about this and out here fighting is not because i don't think the aerospace industry can take care of itself. there's a lot of discussion that arrow space can go where and be built where their economies that will support credit agency financing. but why i'm here is because there's a lot of small businesses who are crafting their product every single day to be the best in the globe. they're working hard to figure out how to stay ahead of the

competition. and, in fact, we had a hearing when i was the chair of the small business committee with one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle whose constituents said to us small business exporting is not for wimps. i thought that was a great statement because they were saying it's hard enough to be a small business person, build a company, have employees and then have to say i'm going to ship my product to a new or developing market and how am i going to make that work. it's not like you can go down the street and pig figure it out. -- and figure it out. so this big manufacturer, medium sized -- the big in this small town, said exporting is not for wimps. you're taking risk and one of the things that we've done as a country to help minimize that risk of that small business owner who is helping the u.s. economy grow by expanding his market and hiring new employees is to have a credit agency that provides the insurance to his

local bank that the deal can actually get executed. well for some reason many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle after years and years and years and years and years and years and years of supporting the export-import bank now all of a sudden don't want to support it anymore because the heritage foundation is saying it's something they shouldn't support. in fact, they are giving bonus points on a ranking system as a way to say we'll reward you for trying to get rid of what has been a viable tool for small businesses in our economy. so we hope that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will soon wake up to the fact that the expiration of such an important tool is not in the interest of our economy and not in the interest of small businesses, and come up with a vehicle for this to get done. those on the other side of the aisle who think it's okay that the bank lapses is putting about $12 billion of deals at risk

that are before the bank, but won't get executed on if the bank closes at the end of this month. so i hope that my colleagues will work towards a solution on this issue. i hope that they understand that the export credit agency is a job creator for small business and come up with a vehicle so it must pass before june 30. i thank the president and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president i want to express my appreciation to senator mccain and senator jack reed for their leadership of the armed services committee. it's unusual indeed, and good for the republic that both of them are academy graduates though the navy and army academies sometimes can be quite competitive, they get along very well and respect each other and the committee has done a very good job. i understand there's some

concern about some of our members concerning the desire to spend more on nondefense money and perhaps use this bill as a hostage to force the congress to spend more money on other pieces of legislation. i think that would be a very grievous mistake. i have served on the armed services committee now for 18 years, and for quite a long time on the budget committee. and i spent a lot of time looking at the challenges that we face. i think the world has changed since the budget control act was passed in 2011. in 2011, the president told us don't worry we're pulling everybody out of iraq and there are not going to be any problems in iraq. he didn't mention isis. 2011 we didn't have the invasion of the crimea by russia. we didn't have the continueed vicious violent fight in syria.

we didn't have the chaos that's happening in libya. we didn't have the threat to the very iraqi government, its existence, that we thought was on the right path. we didn't have the problem in yemen. so this is just a different world, and unfortunately we're going to have to spend some more money for national defense. that's just the bay it is. -- the way it is. i'm a budget hawk, i've looked at the numbers we're going to have to spend some more money. however, what kind of argument can be contended that if you have to spend more on national defense, we have to make some tough choices on national defense, why have to spend more on nondefense? what kind of argument is that? just for common sense's sake. if you were in a household budget and had to spend more money on one item, you'd probably spend less on the other

items. i would just say that the non defense discretionary spending that some of my colleagues insist need more money before they vote for the armed services bill, the defense bill, is -- basically has flat funding this year, there's not a cut not a cut in the nondefense spending and it grows the next four or five years at 2.5% growth a year, which is faster than the economy has been growing frankly. last quarter the economy was negative. so we just have to understand that we can't hold this bill hostage to that kind of argument. i just believe we're on the right track with a good armed services bill. it's a very strong bipartisan support. apparently over this budget issue we lost a few votes in the senate but it was a strong bipartisan vote for the bill and so far as i can tell there are

few if any big differences on any provisions that are in the bill. so that's good. i think america can be pleased that our committee was able to work effectively. so we'll spend about $612 billion for department of defense and department of energy defense issues that are done in energy. that's a large sum of money. it includes a base budget of $497 billion and $89 billion in the overseas contingency operations. it's an increase in o.c.o. over last year, but not -- still well below the peak of o.c.o. funding that we have had in the years past, and i just have to say the world's a more dangerous place than it has been. the legislation authorizes $135 billion for military

personnel, including pay allowances bonus,, death benefits and permanent change of station moves. it authorizes an across-the-board pay increase of 1.3% for uniform members in grades 06 and below colonel and below. the legislation authorizes $332.2 billion for the defense and health programs, authorizes fiscal year 2016activedutystrengthsforthearm y, army 475,000. some are saying we're going to have to go to 450. maybe we'll have to go to 450,000 but right now we need to slow that reduction and based on the world situation. the navy's forces will be 329,000, marine corps 184,000, air force 317,000. so this is a good markup and i think it moves us in the right

direction. the strategic forces provisions contained in the 2016 authorization bill are important. as chairman of the subcommittee on strategic forces, i'm pleased to inform my colleagues that the bill before them represents a bipartisan consensus and it is a support for the president's plans and the congress' plans to modernize nuclear forces and improve and expand u.s. missile defense capabilities. i'm going to express my particular appreciation to the ranking member, senator donnelly of indiana who approaches these sometimes difficult and even covesialcontroversial issues in a nonpartisan, constructive manner and who has been cloture closely involved in every aspect of the subcommittee from the hearings we've held for the bill's bill's final

markup. this year the portion of the budget request that fall in under the subcommittee's jurisdiction for missile defense, nuclear forces, military space and department of energy, atomic defense activities included a total d $70 billion including $28.7 billion for research and development $1.4 billion for operations and mains nance and $18 billion for department of energy. the missile defense agency. in the area of missile defense the bill fully funds the president's request of $8.2 billion for the missile defense agency. i think we agree with that. it recommends an increase of $330 million for cooperative missile programs including david sling arrow systems of israel

and recommends an increase of $50 million for the interceptor use of u.s. ground-based midcourse systems that would protect the homeland. so this is -- this needs to be done. we've got to get our interceptor systems at the highest level and there's some difficulties we face now in that system. i think some of the criticism or concerns are overstated, but it's not where we want it to be, and we need to be moving in that direction. it can be fixed. we know that. and there are just some things that we need to work on there. it recommends an increase to facilitate the ongoing development of laser programs, which is a new system. it's different from what it had been in the past, and i'm proud -- i believe it has real potential in a lot of other things. but the nuclear forces issue is

significant. the bill would fully fund the president's budget request to operate, maintain, around modernize the nuclear try iyad a esht 10ed systems. this is -- and associated systems much this is essential. we must modernize these weapons many of i are 40 years old and utilize vacuum tubes in their systems. it includes additional $1 billion in 2016 to support the recommendations of the nuclear enterprise review that completed in 2014. we need to listen to those review systems and respond appropriately. i believe this mark does. to ensure the department is planning a full range of nuclear conflict scenarios the bill includes a provision that would direct the department of defense to conduct a net assessment of the global nuclear security environment, including the range of contingencies and scenarios

where u.s. nuclear forces might be -- have to be used. and i will just say personally, i think it's time for us in this dangerous world where people doubt our resolve they doubt sometimes that we're willing to follow through we need to quit talking about nuclear-zero. if that ever happens i wish that it would happen, it's not going to happen anytime soon. that's for sure. we need to be talking about maintaining it, modernizing it, making it safer making it more reliable and more accurate. we can reduce the numbers some more but we need to be talking less about reducing numbers and more about assuring the world that we've got the best nuclear capabilities anywhere on the planet and they're ready to be deployed and can be deployed, heaven forbid that would be necessary. that's just why you have these

forces. it would require the secretary of defense to develop options to respond to the russian violation of the 1987 treaty including counter veiling counter force and active force options. we have violations going on. those just can't be accepted. the department of energy gets funding for its defense nuclear capabilities. and we continue rigorous oversight of the warhead life extension and construction programs that would support a reliable and modernized nuclear stockpile we're on the right track there for sure, i think. the bill includes a number of

provisions to improve congressional oversight of the nnsa activities and track the recommendations of the congressional vies advisory panel on the governance of nnsa. we need a better coordination with the department of energy. i think we're moving in that direction. over the last several years i porkedpushed foyerpushed for it aggressively. i think progress is being made. more needs to be done. military space -- a space programs bill. our whole defense department depends more than most people realize on our ability to maintain space capabilities. so this bill funds those programs i think effectively. i believe they they do. it would require the secretary of defense a new idea to

designate one individual to serve as the principal space control advisor who shall act as the principal advisor to the secretary of defense on space control activities. i think that will help. with respect to the program oversight, the bill would prohibit the use of funds for the defense meteorological satellite program or launch of the defense meteor lodge meteorological satellite program until the secretary of defense and chairman of the joint chiefs write a certification that nonmaterial or lower-cost solutions are insuffer. senator mccain has challenged us all to maintain oversight of these programs and contains calls that i think can help do that. so in conclusion, i have reached my belief that our committee has worked in a

positive way. we've taken the advice of the president and the defense department. we've examined it in an appropriate way and produced this bill that i believe will strengthen our national defense. and with strong backing to modernize and expand our missile defense capabilities and to strengthen our deployed forces, allies and partners. so i hope we don't have a fuss over demands to increase spending for non-defense when we're supposed to be funding the defense department. if there are arguments to be made in that regard, it's on another bill when those bills come up. it's not toit ought to be brought forth in that fashion. it would be wrong and i think a big mistake to use defense appropriations and authorization

bills in any way as some sort of hostage to force spending in other areas. the bill is a good bill. it puts us on the right course. it has broad bipartisan support. and if we can avoid those kind of political gym mass sticks, i think -- gymnastic i think we'll be in good position to promptly take care of the people we've deployed, who defend our country and to maintain security of our homeland. i thank the chair and yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i call up amendment 1456, which is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. mccain proposals an amendment numbered 1456. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: in consultation with senator reed, i ask consent that the next amendments in order be reed 1521, portman

1522 reed or designee amendment followed by cornyn 1486. what -- whether those amendments will be required for the yeas and nays or voice vote, we'll figure out as we move through the amendments. i ask unanimous consent. further, that the regular order with regard to these amendments be the order as i stated, regardless of the order offered. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. reed: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: i would ask that jody ben.net be granted privileges of the floor at all times during the senate's consideration of the votes relating to the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2016. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: thank you mr. president. at this time i would call up

reed number 1521. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. reed for himself and others proposes an amendment numbered 1521 to amendment number 159 1563. mr. reed: i ask to dispense with the reading. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: i would be prepared to debate this. i have talked about it before, but i would be prepared to debate it extensively over the next several days, and my colleague will also. with that, i will yield the floor. mr. portman: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: i rise today to talk about the national defense authorization act and offer a bipartisan amendment with senator peters that will strengthen this really important underlying legislation we're working on. as you know, mr. president the security threats around the world continue to grow. a lot of experts believe that isis is now the best-trained, best-equipped, best-financed terror organization we've ever

seen. al qaeda continues to threaten our own country. if you look at what's going on around the world hamas and hezbollah are looking to rage violence on israel. china continues to intimidate its neighbors that the south china sea and we live in a dangerous and volatile world. as a result, it's absolutely imperative that we maintain a strong national defense to defend the homeland and our allies. with all these crises, we sometimes neglect other crisis, one that chairman mccain has constantly reminded us about that's the situation in ukraine which could spin out of control at any time. in fact, mr. president news out of eastern ukraine this morning is thrice troubling. it appears that the latest russian and separatist attacks on ukrainian positions may be the final blow to what was in fact a cease-fire in name only. russia is increasingly aggressive on the european

continent. we need to be acknowledging that and dealing with that in this legislation. i just returned from a trip to ukraine in april a year after i was there leading the congressional delegation to monitor the election of president poroshenko. a lot has happened thins that election. i learned about this in my meetings recently with the prime minister and president poroshenko and other ukrainian officials. they have reached a pivotal moment in ukraine. the ukrainian people have sacrificed in hopes of securing a democratic future for their country. house,however, they need our help. they need military and political support from the united states, from our nato allies. it is absolutely critical to this vision of a democratic ukraine, a free ukraine coming to fruition. the people of ukraine in my view have made a very clear and unequivocal choice and we need to stand with them. their choice is to pursue a

pro--pro-western democratic path. they are government has fought decades of endemic corruption that has left the country weak and unprepared for the russian aggression that has occurred. however, none of these reforms will mean much if ukraine is unable to secure its borders or defend its sovereignty. the ndaa before us has a lot of important provisions related to this crisis in crimea and along the eastern border of ukraine. i applaud chairman mccain and rank member reed for their efforts on this. i hope we'll be able to entertain a few other amendments that will even strengthen the u.s. posture and support of ucaifnlt i look forward tock on the floor later this week to talk about this dismution ukraine this more detail. this afternoon i've come to talk about a related amendment that is of great importance to this situation in eastern europe that continues to destabilize. following my visit to ukraine this spring, i visited latvia and i went there because i wanted to spend some time with our soldiers from an abrams tank

company who were there on a nato inmission. aim sure most of my colleagues know that recent force structure changes moved our two heavy brigades out of europe. this unit that i saw in latvia and the other two companies in the baltics are only there on a rotational basis and will soon return home to the united states. to fort stewart. these units are sending an important message to our allies and the latvias are appreciative but they are temporary. they are looking for a permanent presence. this is what sends the stronger message. the big news when i was over there, mr. president was that there was a road march being conducted by the second cavalry regiment through eastern europe. this was taking their strikers which was the only permanently stationed u.s. armed vehicle in europe on roads and through small towns towns that fear an increasingly aggressive russia

on their doorstep. the unit was doing all they could to help reassure allies and demonstrate u.s. resolve but they were doing all they could with what they have and what they have is not enough. they don't have what they need. this unit has communicated this urgently to us here in the united states congress. their weapons systems are inadequate to meet potential mission requirements if called upon. they need a more powerful gun. they need to replace their 50 caliber machine guns with 30 millimeter cannons. the soldiers understands that. the army has identified this requirement and prior to this deterioration in europe they slated to field these to the strikers starting in 2020. they knew it was a problem and then we saw this deteriorating problem in europe caused by crime i can't being -- crimea being annexed. 2020 is too far in the future.

this year u.s. army in europe addressed this capability gap in the second calvary regiment. according to the needs statement the unit lacks -- and i quote -- "the lethality of a direct fire system, direct weapons fire system to engage similar units or those supported by life armored vehicles. end quote. on april 22, army headquarters validated this high priority need and assigned this requirement to the program manager for execution. to shave several years off the fielding time line, however the army needs additional funding they say in fiscal year 2016. they need it now. that's exactly what this amendment does. the review of these requirements by the army was occurring while the defense bill was being marked up in committee. the house appropriators the first to mark up since the army communicated the requirement fully funded the need. i want to thank chairman mccain and i want to thank the ranking member for their consideration including this important funding into this bill

even though the need was communicated very recently. this cannon itself will be competed and that is appropriate. the increase in funding is offset by taking additional reductions from the expected surplus from the current fluctuations identified by g.a.o. additional reductions won't match reductions that the house has taken to these accounts. i want to thank the fellow members of our body here in the senate for their support of this amendment. senator peters, my colleague from michigan, has been my partner on the other side of the aisle on this effort. he's been a strong supporter of giving our soldiers what they need in europe and sending that strong message we talked about earlier. senator cotton talked about this issue in the armed services committee. he's chair of the air land subcommittee. other members include senator inhofe senator sessions, senator wicker, senator toomey who is presiding today and of course senator mccain. mr. president, this amendment is of vital importance for our

forward deployed troops. it sends a critical message in this time of uncertainty in europe. i urge my colleagues to support this. it's bipartisan. it's needed. i urge their swift adoption. and because of that, mr. chairman today i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment in order to call up amendment number 1522. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from ohio mr. portman for himself and others proposes an amendment numbered 1522. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: the senator from ohio, is he asking for the yeas and nays?

mr. mccain: 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. reed: mr. president, i would suggest -- ask rather that the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: thank you mr. president. i want to respond while the senator from ohio is here, first to commend him for his influence on the striker program. it has been extraordinarily effective in protecting our soldiers and their efforts both in afghanistan and iraq. it's a critical program. the amendment would add $371 million of funding. we all understand this is a very difficult budget environment. i would point out that the army submitted their unfunded requirements list to the committee in march. this was not on their request. however, it's my understanding that the request for additional funding is driven by a new requirement that actually became evident in april of 2015.

so the issue could have been that they weren't as aware as they should have been. for the record, this is not part of the unfunded requirement list of the army. we did not have the chance to look at this as an approach that we would include in our defense appropriations bill. it was not literally on the radar screen until april and it didn't come up formally with their unfunded request. so i'm concerned that these lethality improvements have not been fully vetted by the committee and by the department and also by the department of defense. and then there's another issue here too is this is a first step in a multiyear program and we're not quite sure at this point how over the next several years much more money we'd have to commit to production, testing, training, logistics. and then the other area of concern not just in terms of sort of the looking closely at

the program the need and the long-term budgetary effects, is the payfor, an offset for foreign currency accounts. the department of's request has been reduced by $550 million. we are literally taking that money from their currency accounts and now we're going to take another $371 million. so we're really getting very, very close to what this account can bear in terms of cost added to it. and then again, i think since its o & m that's the basic account we're taking from to put in a platform, it raises the other issue which is so central to everything the chairman and everyone else has been doing which is how do we keep the army

ready. and there's a trade-off. there's a trade-off between new platforms and making sure the soldiers we have are training on the existing platforms and doing their work. so i would is express strong reservations. i'd be happy to work with the senator from ohio. i understand that this is driven by his commitment to make soldiers -- sure our soldiers have the best equipment in the world. mr. portman: i appreciate the ranking member's comments and look forward to working with him on this. as we talked about a moment ago on the floor, this is something the army has requested. they came late. he's absolutely right. they did make a request in march in terms of smith this operational needs -- submitting this op racial needs but it wasn't until march 22 that they assigned it to the program manager so the committee didn't have the opportunity to look at it as they have others. i will say it is urgent. having been over there and seen one of those temporary armored

companies about to leave they need this badly. what they're saying is the 30 millimeter cannon is necessary to go up against any potential enemy and the.50 caliber machine gun is not. this is not moving more abram's tanks into the area. i look forward to working with the ranking member on this. i hope we can work through this even in the next several days here to get this done. it is so important. it will be repeated. it is a gun system. it is something that does require an offset, and that offset by the way the account that g.a.o. has identified as having a certain amount of funding does have that much room in it and more we are told. also the house has taken more out of its currency fluctuation account than the committee has. i thank the ranking member very much for working with us on this. i know he too has a strong commitment to our soldiers who are there to make sure they have what they need to complete their mission in an increasingly

volatile environment in europe. with that, i yield back to my colleague from rhode island. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president as we begin this very important discussion about how we go about the business of defending our country and preserving the peace and our national security, i think it's really important we look at all elements of american power. we're very familiar with the fact that we have the world's best military, best trained with the most technologically advanced weapons systems. we ought to also look at america's other sources of great power, and that means things like soft power. let me explain. here's the problem. many nato countries are allies in europe, the north atlantic treaty organization countries many of whom are former satellites of the soviet union and that are now being

intimidated by the russian federation they rely heavily on energy resources from russia, creating what i think can euphemistically be called strategic vulnerability but many of them are just down right scared about what it means in terms of their ability to survive a russian intimidation. according to a recent "wall street journal" op-ed by former national security advisor steven hadley and former secretary of defense leon panetta 14 countries that are a part of the, part of nato buy 15% or more of their oil from russia. the distinguished chairman of the armed services committee who is not on the floor right now but he famously said russia is a nation masquerading as a gas station. it produces prodigious sources of energy, but unfortunately

they view enemy as one of their weapons. and so the fact that 14 of these nato countries buy 15% or more of their oil from russia is a real vulnerability from them. several other countries in eastern and central europe buy more than 50% of their energy supply from russia. as i said, russia has huge sources of oil and gas but they're using them not only as a source of economic strength and to provide for the russian people but they're using it as a source of intimidation and coercion. for example in january of 2009, russia effectively turned off the natural gas to ukraine and this affected at least ten countries in europe who rely upon natural gas that crosses ukraine from russia. according to a report released last fall from the european commission several countries in europe could lose up to 60% of their gas supply if supply lines

from russia are disrupted. that's the problem. here is what i propose we do about it. one of the things we can do. the united states, of course, is experience -- has experienced an energy renaissance in recent years, thanks to the technology produced by the private sector, most specifically the use of fracking in conjunction with horizontal drilling, which has turned america into an energy powerhouse. years ago not that many years ago, people were talking about peak oil. in other words they basically were making the argument that all the oil that could have been produced was being produced, and we would then now be on a period of decline. well that proved to be wrong and so now thanks to this huge production of american energy, we know we can use our ample energy resources not only to supply our own needs here at home but to use the surplus to

reassure our allies and our partners and to reduce their dependence on bad actors like russia and iran. you know, if you think about it, some of the sanctions which we have deployed against both iran and russia for their bad behavior, one of the most effective ones is the indirect sanction of lower oil and gas prices because frankly mr. putin has calculated that oil prices would remain very high and when they get low that means he doesn't have the financial wherewithal in order to make some of the mischief that he and iran are so noted for. the united states, of course, is significantly -- has significantly diversified our energy resources. the united states has consumed the lowest level of imported petroleum in the last 30 years. that was this last year. that -- let me just repeat that list. last year, the united states consumed the lowest level of

imported petroleum in the last 30 years. and according to the international energy agency, today the united states is the largest oil and natural gas liquids producer in the world. surpassing saudi arabia, for example. well i've offered -- i've filed a number of amendments that i -- and i intend to call up just one of those in a moment, but let me describe briefly the amendments that we filed that i think helps provide at least some progress toward a solution for the problem that i have described. in light of this new geopolitical landscape, i have offered several amendments that would further our strategic position in the world while also strengthening our allies, making them less vulnerable to the intimidation and bullying tactics of the russian federation under vladimir putin. these amendments aimed to help nato and our other allies in europe diversify their energy

resources and lessen their dependency on energy supplies of some of our major adversaries like russia and iran. the first amendment would point out the existing authorities the president already has under a current law related to energy exports if he determines that it is in our national interests and of course this is an authority under current law that applies not only to the present occupant of the white house it would also apply to his successor. this amendment expresses a sense of the congress that the president should exercise these current authorities to aid our allies and partners in europe and elsewhere. to help the united states get smart on how russia currently uses its energy program as a weapon against our allies and partners this amendment would mandate also an intelligence assessment to better understand the vulnerabilities of nato and our other allies and partners in

europe. and then it would also expand the requirement of the pentagon's annual russia military power report to mandate an analysis of russia's ability to use energy supplies as a tool of coercion or intimidation against our allies and partners in europe. so this would restate the present authorities the president of the united states currently has to produce -- to sell oil and gas to our allies in europe like ukraine and other nato allies. it would require an additional intelligence assessment to make sure that we understand fully the implications of this vulnerability that europe and our nato allies has to russia and its intimidation tactics. and third it would expand the requirements of a current report that the pentagon makes on an annual basis called the russia military power report.

the mandated analysis of russia's ability to use energy supplies as a tool of coercion or intimidation. two other amendments which we filed, which i will not call up at this time, would help reduce the need for u.s. allies to purchase energy from russia and iran. it would do this by adding a specific exception to the law that would allow crude and natural gas exports to allies and partners when their energy security is compromised. so, for example, if a nato ally or partner like ukraine or japan requests additional energy exports from the united states, the president must approve it in a timely fashion if he finds it to be in the united states national interests. this would provide our allies and our partners with an additional source of fuel and a little additional reassurance that if they are subjected to the kind of intimidation and coercion i mentioned a moment ago, that we as their friend and their allies would supply them

with an alternative source of energy they need in order to keep the lights on and keep their economy running. finally, we filed an amendment that would amend the natural gas act to require the secretary of energy to approve liquefied natural gas exports to the north atlantic treaty organization countries and other named partners and allies. this uses the same preferential treatment that's already given to our free trade partners which are automatically deemed to be in the public interest. so in conclusion, mr. president these amendments are designed to address a very specific problem and a very specific vulnerability of some of our closest allies in europe and to relieve them from some of the pressure of russian intimidation and coercion when russia attempts to use energy as a weapon. we can use this as an important element of our soft power to help our allies and relieve this

coercion and intimidation. these amendments would strengthen the strategic hand of the united states in a world that grows more complicated by the day not to mention more dangerous. i encourage my colleagues to support them and by doing so to take a long-term view of our own national security as well as the peace and stability of some of our most trusted allies and partners. and so, mr. president i would ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment in order to call up amendment number 1486. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will order the report. the clerk: the senator from texas, mr. cornyn, proposes amendment number 1486 to amendment number 1463. mr. cornyn: i ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president i appreciate the courtesies of the chairman and the ranking member to allow this amendment to be called up and to give me a chance to explain its importance and how it fits into the

national security strategy of the united states. i know we don't typically tend to think of our energy resources as being an element of our national strength and power that we can project beyond our borders in a way that helps aid our allies and friends and reduces the influence of our adversaries like iran and russia but i hope my colleagues will take a close look at this amendment and when the time comes vote to support it. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. tillis: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: thank you mr. president,. i would ask we dispense with the calling of the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: i ask consent to set a side the pending amendment and on behalf of senator bennet call up amendment number 1540. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will

report. the clerk: the senator from rhode island, mr. reed, for mr. bennet -- mr. reed: i ask unanimous consent further reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: mr. president i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. menendez: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: mr. president once again the truth proves elusive when we are dealing with iran's unpredictable regime. i refer to a "new york times" article that is entitled iran's nuclear stockpile grows complicating negotiations. among elements of the article -- and i know that the article is being disparaged by the state department. i'll talk about that in a moment. but among elements of the

article is the fact that iran's stockpile of nuclear fuel has increased about 20% over the last 18 months of negotiation increased, increased. 20% in the last 18 months of negotiation. now, in essence, we are to be convinced that iran will have to shrink its stockpile by 96% in a matter of months if a deal is signed even while it continues to produce new material as demonstrated little success in reducing its current stockpile. now, i'm reading from the "times" article. it goes on to say in part that means that iran would have to rid itself of more than nine tons of its stockpile in a

matter of months, in a matter of months. now, this is a continuing challenge that we have as we look at these negotiations. we are supposedly in the final months. the end of this month is when we are hopefully going to come to some time of an agreement and we see what has been a challenge from the very beginning. it is a challenge that i have cited time and time again. how much of these numbers are done because of iran's desire to push the numbers upwards. is that for a political purpose is it for negotiating purpose is it for technological inability? whatever it is, the numbers published friday by the

international atomic energy agency the independent agency for which so much of the joint plan of action and any future agreement that might be consummated, this is the entity that we are depending upon. this entity has said that iran has continued to enrich uranium aggressively even though it knew that it was not meeting its goals of converting its stockpile into reactor rods. now, this is a real question that i have, and then another independent group the bipartisan policy center said in february iran has failed to do the conversion. now, we knew from the beginning that it was going to be difficult for the iranians to blend down rather than ship out

because they have this aversion of shipping out if at all possible to ship out but they have consistently said they will not ship out their fuel, and we knew it would be a concern if they weren't able to do what they pledged to do, and frankly i am concerned. i'm concerned that this is just another diplomatic sleight of hand by an untrustworthy negotiating partner. i am concerned that iran is still saying it will not ship out excess low enriched uranium but rather blend it down and store it. and i am concerned that this is more of an issue than the administration is willing to concede, particularly if there is no deal, and we in essence with sanctions relief paid them to convert and they say -- and then they walk away with massive amounts of low enriched uranium that can be fed into their centrifuges and converted to highly enriched uranium. let's be clear the tracking and verification of uranium mines and mills which have often been

talked about as a part of why we will have a safeguard if there is a deal to centrifuges only works if iran gets rid of its stockpile. it doesn't work any other way. "the new york times" has identified a real problem with the mechanisms being used to control iran's nuclear stockpile. the simplest solution would be to ship iran's stockpile out of the country. this would prevent any questionable buildup of material. however, iran has refused to do this at least publicly and opened the potential for manipulation about what is going on. there may be technical reasons for the 20% increase in low enriched uranium but one has to wonder are they laying? are they really having problems building a conversion facility something i expressed concerns about early in the process or is this another attempt to play

fast and loose with the truth cover it up and buy time? is it a negotiating posture so as they come closer and closer to the deadline they have all this enriched uranium and there is this compulsion to strike a deal, not a good deal but a deal at any cost. while this may not be a technical violation of the joint plan of action, the iranians were supposed to have reached the agreed-upon goal. the fact is, midway through the process we are told there could be a delay but clearly the timetable has slipped even further away. i know the state department has gone after the article which in part is based by facts on the international atomic energy administration, the administration has gone out of their way to attack the premise of the article because i guess anything that would upset the fundamental belief that we have to have a deal at any cost is

problematic for the state department. but i have to be honest with you, as i read it, the state department's response, it means to me, their main response appears to be that iran is not in technical violation of the joint plan of action because it still has a month left to transform all of the extra low enriched uranium that it's created in recent months into ox eyed. -- oxide. this pushback is something we should have expected because it's the only argument that the administration actually has available to it to explain this and it's the same argument they use when many of us were raising the concerns that iran was busting through their oil export caps set under the joint plan of action every

month, and we were consistently told well, next month the iranians will ship even less and therefore it will all even out. well the fact of the matter is was when time ran out the exports of iran remained way above what was allowed and then the administration shifted to an explanation only to suggest that certain types of oil just don't count. there's always a reach here to try to get a justification for iran. now, i think the state department's response totally misses the point of the "new york times" article. the upshot of the piece isn't that there's no way for iran to meet its joint plan of action obligations in theory -- in theory -- it's that iranians have stockpiled so much low enriched uranium that it's all but impossible for them to meet those objectives in practice.

the iranians may have calculated that they don't have to do so. and that the administration isn't about to blow up an impending nuclear deal over violations of past agreements if those violations bear directly on iranian intentions and capabilities to implement the agreements. now, there's another group which has been before the senate foreign relations committee when i was the chairman we called them several times i think senator corker has the -- as the new chair has a deep respect for them as well, the institute for science and international security. they posted their analysis of this specific question, will iran be able to meet its obligations regarding its 5% low enriched uranium. and in the response to that question the institute for science and international

security david albright, who is arguably one of the most respected voices on iran's nuclear program comes to this conclusion -- quote -- "iran has fallen behind in its pledge to convert its newly produced low low-enriched uranium into oxide form. there are legitimate questions whether iran can produce all the requisite l.e.u. oxide. iran has 25 kilograms of hecks owe fluoride into the eupp, the method -- the vehicle by which they ultimately have the conversion but it has not fed any, any 3.5% low enriched uranium hexafluoride into the plan since november of 2014, november of last year. by the end of june, they go on

to say in order to meet its commitment under the joint plan of action, iran must finish converting the 2,720 kilograms of low enriched uranium into oxide and knew it into that vehicle and qert convert into oxide. iran has fallen behind on its pledge under the joint plan of action. now, on a policy level the institute's analysis emphasizes that iran's refusal to meet its obligation -- quote -- "show the risk posed by relying on technical solutions that have not yet been demonstrated by iran." so technical solutions that we say if in fact they can do this this may be part of our way in which we can strike a deal but those technical

solutions not have been demonstrated by iran of being capable of meeting those technical solutions. tehran is under sanctions and in the middle of negotiations yet we still can't rely upon it. i think that this is a serious concern not to be minimized this is at the same time that iran is boarding commercial ships in the strait of hormuz, firing at some of them. this is the same tehran that is in the midst of -- as a country of going ahead and engage in the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world in lebanon, in syria, in iraq, in yemen, and yet even as we are in the midst of a negotiation while all these things are taking place and

even if we want to wall off all the nonnuclear acts of tehran that have to worry us and concern us in terms of our national security and international order as it relates to the nuclear portfolio, they don't seem to be headed in the direction of what is clearly necessary in order to meet their obligations under the joint plan of action. they don't seem at least at this point in time to be technically capable of doing that even though these are the fixes that we are looking for and at the end of the day you have to really wonder why we continue to find a way to excuse iran in every element. we had something that was found independently, reported to the united nations security council commission that deals with

questions, and they were ultimately fueling one of their rods was bought -- was raised and, again then it was responded to. it was deemed de minimus. we had all the oil exports greater than what they were allowed and explained it away saying certain types of oils were counted in. we had a set of circumstances where they have raised their fuel capacity, not lowered it, even as they are headed towards an agreement where they have to dramatically reduce it. so i have a real problem in consistently seeing the willingness to stretch to allow iran to get where it is today. it is that view that lets the world, unfortunately allow iran to get to the point of the precipice of having the nuclear powerrened it can convert to a nuclear weapon. that is not in the national

security interest of the united states. i, mr. president have the intention in this period of time to consistently come to the floor and raise these issues as they evolve and rear their heads at a critical -- at critical moments. i think we have to be very committed to knowing the truth here. and while all of us aspire for an agreement that can truly stop iran's path towards a nuclear weapon and that that be something that's not just limited in time because the persians have for 5,000 years been trying to have the power and the hegemonic interest they have they are closer to it from my perspective than at any other time and if you are already have your people

suffering under sanctions, as a result of your actions and you are using the resources that you have not to help your people but to continue to spread terrorism throughout the region, then you can only wonder when a deal is struck and large flows of money begin to return to iran, what they will do with that money. and it seems to me that you would have a strategy set up to think about that before you even get to a deal, assuming you can achieve a good deal. but when i see them taking actions that in my view may not be a technical violation but are contrary to everything they're supposed to do, when you have independent groups like the institute for science and david albright when you have the iaea make these observations -- observations, it has -- those are worrying. mr. president, i think it is

incredibly important on what i believe is one of the most significant national security and international security order questions that will come before the senate that we not just look the other way but we challenge when these facts continue to come forward about what is the truth behind them and what does it mean for any potential agreement and how we continue to judge iran's actions in the light of any potential agreement. i know that we're told constantly this is a hope and it's all going to be verified, it's not on trust but will be verified but i have to be honest with you, depends what you keep defining what is permissible and not. from my perspective this, where we're headed, is not what i think is in the national interest and security of the united states. with that i yield the floor and

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

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call in progress be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: i know we have a lineup of speakers. we have the speaker from hawaii who is going to be here shortly is. but i would like to make a couple comments. first of all the can fact that we're getting to this bill is really great because if you look at the last few years we have not had a chance to do this late in the year. and the last two years it was december before we actually got around to it. and it could have been a real crisis because i think moves us know in here that if we'd gone to december 31, all kinds of things would have stopped, the funding for a lot of our re-enlistment bonuses and other things. and i applaud the chairman for using his influence to get this on the floor so we can go ahead and get it passed.

it's something that we need to make sure that the people who are out there risking their lives on daily basis know that we're having this as a top priority. i want to make one comment about sequestration. you know, people are talking about putting things -- equal amounts of increases not just in the military or defense portion but also the other portions of government, like the i.r.s. and the e.p.a., without recognition that as we went through the funding mechanism we were taking money out of military on a 50-50 basis with non-defense moneys while the military is only 16% of the budget. so we already started at a great disadvantage. now, as far as the o.c.o. is concerned, that's kind of a desperate effort. it is not the way we should be doing this. but we have to have the support and keep the readiness up in the -- with our troops. now, we do have some good things that are in this bill. the funding for the c kc-46 the

long-range strike bomber, the f-35 so we are at least treading water here. i want to say one thing though, that i didn't approve of in this and we may try to make some chaiption onchanges on the floor. that is the brac progress. i think we know that the base realignment and closing process has been going on since 1987. this is no time to be doing something with that. i'm very happy that we're able to continue that and not see one for a period of time. one thing that is consistent about brac rounds, that is they all cost a lot of money in the first five years. and people -- if there's ever a time in the history of this body and of the military that we can't afford to take money out it is now. we addressed a couple of things -- there are some things that

need to be fixed in the -- as we move on to the floor. and i know that our chairman, senator mccain, has been asking people to bring down their amendments. i think that we should be doing that and i anticipate that a lot of amendments will be coming down. i would like to say one thing though about git gitmo. the whole idea of gitmo -- and there is this myth out there that somehow the terrorists think that we hurt people at gitmo. somehow we think it's something that should be altered and should be changed. but i don't believe that's the case. now, mr. president i see the senator from hawaii is on the floor. i'm kind of into his time right now, and so i'm going to continue comments throughout the rest of the afternoon and tomorrow and yield back the time to him which i have taken away from him for a few minutes. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. schatz: mr. president i

thank the chairman of the environment and public works committee for his gentlemanliness and for his our ability to work together. and when we disagree to be agreeable about it. i really appreciate that relationship. mr. president, i'd like to talk about climate change, and i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schatz: climate change is real. i.t.it's caused by humans. it's urgent and it's solvable. this year we've had some debates about climate change on the senate floor and a majority of members, including more than a few republicans admitted that climate change is real and caused by humans. we've passed bipartisan amendments calling for the united states to reduce carbon pollution and fight

human-induced climate change. that's a necessary step in the riteright direction but it's not enough. we need to take real action. we need to focus on real solutions. and here's the he can siting part: you there are plenty of real-world cost-effective solutions to climate change, and a lot of them empower everyday americans, giving them more control in terms of how they get their energy. one of these solutions is distributed energy generation, or d.g. d.g. is creating a real revolution in the energy sector by putting individuals and homeowners in control. the ability to own carbon-free power generation is helping everyday americans realize that even though washington is slow in the extreme on these questions, they can be part of the solution. d.g. systems are smawcialtion but they provide -- are small but they provide major benefits. they can be more efficient help

promote national security, reduce fuel bills and provide power during blackouts. most important had for fighting climate change, distributed generation lets us take advantage of major advances in clean energy. through the use of renewable d.g. like small-scale wind, solar, and geothermal, americans can take simple steps to reduce their carbon footprint. and here's the important thing about distributed generation, and we're seeing it across the country in red states and blue states among conservatives and liberals. you don't have to be as passionate as i am about climate change to be enthusiastic about distributed generation, because nobody wants to pay more than is necessary on their electricity bill. and so the idea of generating your own electricity has lots and lots of -- is very, very attractive to individuals regardless of your ideology, regardless of your partisan affiliation. this has tremendous potential to save individuals and businesses

and institutions real money. d.g. is changing the nature of the united states energy system. it's especially true in hawaii where more than 12% of our residents have rooftop solar which is by far the highest rate in the united states. rooftop solar is the most well-known renewable energy d.g. source. the price of solar panels has come down 80% since 2008, and the cost to install residential systems has dropped by about half since 2010. 80% cheaper since 2008 for the panels and and about half as expensive just to get them on a roof since 2010678 the prices -- since 2010. and the prices are going down and down. what we thought was possible with respect to distributed generation a couple of years ago is changing everything we know about the united states energy system. in 2006, about 30,000 homes in

the united states had rooftop solar. 30,000 homes in 2006. by 2013, that number had risen to over 400,000 homes. and according to the energy information administration and department of energy, as many as 4 million homes could have solar panels within five years. but d.g. is fash far more than just rooftop solar. small wind systems sized for homes, schools and farms in rue moat communities are taking off. with over 74,000 turbines installed in all 50 states. one family in upstate new york installed a small wind turbine on its farm in 2012. rated add 50 kilowatts, it will actually run at 60 or 70 when the wind is strong, they liked it so much. three branches of the family decided to lease three 10-kilowatt turbines for their

home expects to make back their investment within five years and make a profit after that. ed dudy, one of those farmers say, "my wife says it's like change in your pocket. when it's running you make a little money." small-scale biogas systems offer farmers and ranchers opportunities to save money on energy and reduce methane emissions. over 250 farms in the united states have made this investment and the economics work for many, many more. one dairy farm in california hanes stalled a system -- has installed a system that uses manure to create and capture and create energy. the farm saves $800,000 bucks a year in electricity and propane expenses and will earn back the money from its initial investment in just four years. now, mr. president as you know, i'm passionate about climate change but you don't have to care about climate change to be excited about distributed generation. this is going to save people

money, and that's the exciting thing about it. there are lots of factors that are adding to the dramatic growth of distributed energy, including evolving state-level incentives and interconnection standards. but the most important reason has been the reduction in cost, especially when it comes to solar. it's simply getting cheaper for a homeowner for a farmer to see real savings by investing in cleaning energy. major reason for these cost reductions has been consistent, predictable federal and state support. from about 2005 until recently, congress has done a fairly good job of providing consistent support for clean energy and distributed generation. we provided long-term tax credits that helped industries scale up and appropriated funds for the d.o.e. necessary to spur real innovation and bring down the cost. but that consistent support has tapered off in recent years with the expiration of a number of

important credits and the clean energy industry will suffer further when the business and homeowner tax credits for renewable energy expire at the end of next year. that's why i plan to introduce in the coming weeks a bill that would extend the homeowners tax credit for sole solar wind, and geothermal. this credit allows americans to take controlling of their own energy futures. and congress should extend it. the explosion in d.g. does pose real challenges. electric utilities must adjust and the lines between ratepayers and generators become blurred. this challenges the traditional utility business model and there's nowhere that is facing this challenge more seriously than in the state of hawaii, where we have a series of island grids and we have unprecedented penetration of renewable energy into the grid. the old standard used to be a maximum of 15% of intermittent

energy onto the grid. but we have parts of our grid that are in the 25% to 35% intermittent energy, and so there are real challenges in upgrading our grid system, group upgrading our electricity system and creating a smart gridded that can accommodate it. but it also provides opportunities for innovawtion and the development of -- innovation and the development of new american mar -- american markets. this is not in the distant future. this is happening now. each home, each business, each farm is now within reach of controlling its own energy future. often with carbon-free clean energy. distributed energy is a real solution to climate change both in the united states and around the world. it has created a revolution in energy production that we must harness and accelerate for the challenge of climate change. but it is a challenge we meet, and it what excites me so much

about distributed generation is that as much as we're fighting about keystone several months ago, as much as we're likely to have a fight over the congressional review act having to do with the president's clean power plan, as much as i am, with senator whitehouse's leadership, going to introduce a carbon fee, there are lots of things where we're frankly not going to be able to find an agreement any time soon. there are spaces where we can work together. and allowing individuals to generate their own electricity and reduce their power bills seems to be a good place to start in terms of bipartisan energy legislation. and so i thank the president. i thank you for the unanimous consent to allow me to speak about this exciting new possibility, and i yield the floor. a senator: i suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: i ask unanimous consent to suspend the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lee: mr. president i rise today to pay tribute to elder l. tom perry a member of the quorum of 12 apostles of the

church of jesus christ of latter-day saints. elder perry passed away on saturday, may 30, 2015, at the age of 92. l. tom perry was a giant of a man, with an even larger soul. his enthusiasm for life energized and inspired all who came under his extraordinary influence. it has been said that ideas go booming through the world like cannons. thoughts are mightier than armies. and principles have achieved more victories than horse men or chariots. inspiring ideas transformational thoughts and powerful principles, these were the driving force in elder perry's life and ministry and what made him such a positive force for good throughout the world. it's true that elder's perry's booming voice carried his words far and wide but it was his spiritual strength and positive

perspective that sent his cherished ideas on faith family and freedom booming to the four corners of the world and into the hearts of millions. as a marine, as a businessman and as an ecclesiastical leader, elder l. tom perry was committed to helping people elevate their thoughts and their lives. he was a man who knew what it meant to dream big, to be bold, and to never accept anything less than your best. his passion for life, people, and service was contagious. he was among the first wave of marines to arrive in japan as world war ii drew to a close. though he entered as a member of the occupation forces, his thoughts were focused on elevating those around him. he convinced a number of his fellow service men to spend

their free time rebuilding a decimated protestant chapel. later he similarly lifted others by repairing a catholic orphanage. throughout his service as an apostle, he was known for praising positive performance. yet he also made sure that thoughts and sights were forever lifted up so that individuals families and entire communities would strive to do, be and become better. elder perry proved that thoughts are indeed mightier than armies. l. tom perry was a man of principle and he was a man who recognized that believing in, living by and teaching true principles was the key to success in every area of life. he taught that the family is the bulwark of society and central to the strength and vitality of communities and nations. he believed that the principle of freedom was universal and

that all people should have the privilege to live in liberty. he declared that freedom was not a spectator sport and that we all have a sacred duty to defend and protect it. his faith carried him through difficult days and trying times. the principle of faith helped him help others. elder perry simply believed. he believed simply and showed that positively and enthusiastically believing was simply a better way to live. he believed in people, even -- especially when they didn't have the faith to believe in themselves. his life demonstrated that true principles have achieved more victories than horse men or chariots. elder perry often claimed that he was just an ordinary man yet his ideas thoughts and principles enabled him to live an extraordinary life. as an apostle in the church of

jesus christ of latter-day saints, he traveled the world sharing his profound testimony of jesus christ and his love for people from every walk of life. elder perry reminded us that we are to live our lives not by days but by deed, not by seasons but by service. i'm thankful for the life and ministry of elder l. tom perry. he made a difference for his family, his community his church and our nation. mr. president, i'd like to finish where i began. ideas go booming through the world like cannons. thoughts are mightier than armies. and principles have achieved more victories than horse men or chariots. the booming legacy of elder l. tom perry will echo in the hearts reverberate in the minds and warm the souls of many for generations to come.

thank you, mr. president. i note the absence of a quorum. a senator: will the senator withhold. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president i'm just going to seek recognition if that meets with your approval . the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. tillis: mr. president, we have senator alexander scheduled briefly. mr. durbin: i will be speaking about five minutes no more. if senator alexander comes floor, he will not have to wait long. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: thank you very much. mr. president, the ranking member of this important committee, armed services committee, senator jack reed of rhode island, will be offering an amendment to the defense authorization act which i support. i hold the title of vice chairman of the defense appropriations subcommittee and have served as chairman of that

subcommittee as well. this is an awesome responsibility to handle the authorization bill for the greatest military in the world. i salute both my friend senator reid and my friend senator mccain for the hard work that they put into this bill. but there is a fatal flaw in this bill, and senator jack reed addresses it, and i want to speak to it for a minute. senator mccain has stated publicly with others on the republican side a sentiment that's shared on the democratic side. we have to do away with sequestration once and for all. sequestration is a bad idea. it was supposed to be so bad that we'd never see it. it was supposed to be such an extreme, outrageous idea that it would never happen. but it did. because, you see when we failed to hit the budget numbers we automatically go into sequestration, which leads to across-the-board cuts, mindless across-the-board cuts.

those cuts have hurt every agency of government when we did it most of all the department of defense. if there's one agency that needs to be thinking and planning ahead, it's the department of defense. and sequestration sadly made cuts making it impossible for the planners at the department of defense to think ahead to plan ahead. and so senator mccain has said -- senator reid has joined him, and others, have been in the chorus, myself included -- saying once and for all we need to get rid of sequestration. we need to have a budget process here that befits a great nation. and we don't. and unfortunately this authorization bill perpetuates some of the flaws of sequestration. i'm cosponsoring senator jack jackrd's amendment.