fighting tests truce in ukraine." as many of us predicted vladimir putin will continue his aggression and dismemberment of the european nation for the first time in 70 years. i ask unanimous consent that the article entitled "deadly fighting tests truce in ukraine" be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: perhaps the majority leader and others have missed syria likely used chlorine gas in recent bombing raids. rights groups accused the syrian government of using toxic tem cals in attacks involving barrel bombs on rebel-held areas it in northern syria. i ask that article be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: front page of "the new york times" this morning "isis making political gains.

group stakes claim as protector of sunnis." "the islamic state is emerging as an area filling the void in the absence of solid national identity and security, at the same time it responds brutally to any other sunni group mill tapts or civilian, that poses a challenge to its supremacy. that dual strategy purporting to represent sunni interests in attacking any group advised to play the same role has allowed it to grow in the face of withering airstrikes." news today -- yesterday: "isis has closed off a dam in the north of ramadi cutting off splice to towns downstream and making it easier for attacks against forces. only two or three of the dams 26 gates are being opened on the

euphrates river. denying water is a critical weapon to gain more influence and territory." "iraq isis fighters cut off water to towns. "that was on cnn. president hasan r a hasn't knee stated "the iranian government and nation will remain at the side of the syrian nation and government until the end of the road. he also pledged to send reinforcements and backing to bashar assad." u.s.-shiite fighters are necessary. "the militias have an important role to play as long as they take command from the central authority." embedding u.s. forces can help inject energy into leadership,

development in lieu of weaker iraqi commanders." afp beirut, "iraq-iran fighters deployed to defend damascus." "thousands of iranian fighters have been deployed in past weeks to bolster the defenses of damascus and its surrounding a syrian security force told afp on wednesday." "iran's official news agency irna quoted general salamanu as saying "in the coming days the world will be surprised but what we are preparing in cooperation with syrian military leaders." i'd point out to my colleagues, kasam solameini killed hundreds of thousands of soldiers and was

seen prominently in baghdad and other parts of iecialg leading the shiite militias. some of that is complicated. some of it is impossible to make up. finally, "new york times" article on june 2 "assad forces may be aiding new isis surge." building on recent gains in iraq and syria islam ache state militants are marching across northern syria towards ahelp towards aleppo helped along by the forces of syrian president bashar al-assad al-assad." syrian rebels backing out of u.s. fight voar success isis. syrian rebels are backing out because they are not being protected by the united states

of america and being barrel bombed. so i won't even go into the crisis in the far east where china is now militarizing islands in international waters. so here we are mr. president. here we are arguing about the way that the authorization for america's defense is funded, and the majority leader just announced they would take a stand because they don't like the way it's funded. i don't think the way that it's funded. but hasn't -- hasn't those who are in opposition to this some sense of rooltty as to what's going on in the world if we don't authorize the ability to defend this nation and its national security interests which in the words of henry kissinger, before the armed services committee he said there's -- the world has not

seen more crises since the end of world war ii. i say with respect to my good friend senator reid, haven't you got your priorities scwiewd? don't you understand that this is an authorization bill? don't you understand that if you want to fight fight it on appropriations? don't you understand -- i'm sure you do -- that this is about the welfare and benefit of the men and women who are serving? i am as opposed to sequestration as anybody. i have watched the hearings on the senate armed services committee where the military leaders have said sequestration is putting the lives of the men and women who are serving in uniform in greater danger. that should be enough alone. but we are playing the hand that we are dealt. and that fight should not take place on an authorization bill. this authorizes reforms of the pentagon.

this authorizes reforms of retirement system, which is long overdue. it authorizes our ability to acquire the weapons and training necessary to defend this nation. it doesn't fund them. it doesn't fund them. it authorizes them. after intense hearings, months ant months of hearing debate, work in the senate armed services committee we've come up with a product that i'm extremely proud of. so i understand that my friend from rhode island will be proposing an amendment later on to nullify the funding of o.c.o., which would then, by the way, have the effect of reducing the funding and authorization rather dramatically and cancel many vitally needed programs, equipment, and training for the men and women who are serving in the military, and that's fine. but that'll be defeated.

and once it's defeated, i hope -- i hope and pray that we will then move forward with the amendment process which has been absent for the last two years -- totally absent for the last two years -- and not for the first time in 53 years not pass a defense authorization bill through the congress of the united states. for 53 years through democrat and republican majorities, through liberal and conservative, we have authorized -- we have authorized because our highest responsibility is the security of this nation. and i urge all of my colleagues, we want to have this fight have it on the appropriations, the money bill. this is an authorization. and for you to distort it in some way to equate it with a fundingfunding mechanism in my view is intellectual sophistry. mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. reed: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: mr. president the senator from arizona is correct. every uniformed chief of service came before us and said the greatest crisis facing the military was sequestration the budget control act. they asked us to change it. and we didn't change it. if we are going to change it, then we have to take every effort and every step to make those changes. and that is the point that i tried to raise in the committee not by eliminating the funds available to the military but by making these funds subject to responsible action following the request of the defense officials to eliminate sequestration. i think we should do it as soon as possible.

if we don't take every opportunity to make that case and every action possible to take that case, then we will be essentially rejecting the advice of our senior military leaders. and the suggestion that this bill is somehow so totally disconnected to the appropriations process is belied by the title of the bill. this is an act to authorize appropriations for the fiscal year 2016 for the military activities of the department of defense, for military construction and for defense activities of the department of energy. we are directly linked to the appropriations process. in the ideal world the one that we as authorizers would like to see, nothing can be appropriated appropriated no dime can be spent unless we have authorized it. and what we've done, effectively, in the bill -- and i think it's not because it's the chairman's first choice,

it's the only available option given the budget resolution -- is that we have taken the overseas contingency accounts, bulked them up dramatically, and sent a new pathway which next year unless we resolve this issue of the budget control act welcome back again with more money for o.c.o., and the following year, and also, as pointed out, we will have situations where we will find some very strange things happening in our o.c.o. account because we can't fund legitimate concerns of the government in other areas because of caps, and that's essentially is what happened in the 1980's. that's why we have medical research money in the department of defense. not just the department of defense does it but because that was the only option in the 1980's. i think the other issue here which is very implicit in our

activities is that this bill is aimed at the department of defense and military activities of the department of energy. our national security is much more than that. the chairman read quite accurately reports about activity in the world but up my way in rosendale massachusetts there was a terrorist. if we sequest and cut off funding for the department of justice and the f.b.i. and the customs service, et cetera, we will see this threat growing. so this is about a broader view, a wider view, and the overall mass security of the united states. and i know that we have some

votes pending and i would like to go ahead and allow some of my colleagues to speak. mr. mccain: mr. president i ask -- how many -- the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: how much does the senator need? mr. bennet: three or four minutes. mr. mccain: how much does the senator immediate? a senator: two minutes. mr. mccain: mr. president i ask that five additional minutes be scheduled at 10:15. an additional five minutes in order to allow three minutes to is noter from colorado and three minutes for the other senator from colorado. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. bennet: thank you. mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. i'd like to thank the chairman for that additional time and for his commitment and the ranking member's commitment to our national security. i deeply appreciate t i'd like to talk briefly about amendment

1540 which the senate will consider shortly. i'm here with my colleague senator garner, from colorado. we're here on this to require the government accounting office to -- to help identify exactly where the money went on some of these medical facilities. the veterans administration is building several major medical facilities across the country including one in arough a colorado. the project has been grossly mismanaged leading to unacceptable delays and dramatic cost overruns. other projects across the country have had similar problems. for years for years our delegation and practically anyone who's been involved with the aurora project almost anybody who's driven by, has pushed the v.a. to acknowledge that there's actually a problem. and to many coup with l.a.n. to fix it. unfortunately, the v.a. has so far failed to do this and veterans throughout the rocky mountain region have continued to wait nor this new medical

center. we should ensure, we must ensure that the inmistakes made on the project never happen again. but we have all concluded that with greater accountability and transparency the right thing to do is to move forward and complete this critical facility. many of us have experienced imposing accounting and transparency on an enormous federal bureaucracy is elusive and complicated. the g.a.o. has the expertise to identify hard reforms and make them stick. mr. president, we have to hold the v.a. accountable to our taxpayers so we can move forward on the rocky mountain region veterans for the care they need. and the v.a. and congress are going to have to work hard together to get this project back on track. finding the money to do this will be painful. it will be difficult, which is why we need to ensure that we account for every dollar that's been spent. but failing to complete this hospital is not an option. it would be a broken promise. having a half-finished hospital

in colorado would be a national disgrace and we cannot allow it to happen on behalf of our veterans, it would be a disservice worse than a disservice. a broken promise of the worst kind to the hundreds of thousands of veterans across the rocky mountain region and throughout the united states, i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i want to express my gratitude to my colleague from colorado, senator gardner for joining me on this important amendment. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. gardner: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. gardner: i echo the thanks of my colleague senator bennet for his leadership on this effort. it is time we take the v.a. hospital from the thorn of the v.a. system to the crown of the v.a. system, which we know it will be once it is completed. but in the meantime there is a tremendous amount of work that we have to do, and i would like to thank the chairman of the armed services committee for allowing this time today on the floor, noting that there are four members of this body who have actually visited the facility in denver in recent

months. the presiding officer has witnessed this whole in the ground right now that has already spent hundreds of millions of dollars projected to be $1.73 billion at this point. we have talked about the need to complete it, and committed to that need to finish this project. along with the chairman of the veterans' committee who has joined us on the floor today johnny isakson senator isakson who is here today with us who is in support of this amendment to bring more accountability to the v.a. system so that we can understand what went wrong when they were building not only the awe -- awr ror are a facility -- aurora facility. veterans gathered this past week in colorado to rally to finish the damned thing. and we have a veterans administration who time and time again has failed to take into account the necessary measures, policies to fix it and to prevent it from ever happening

again. and with this amendment, we can start to find out where they went wrong and to hold them accountable. when the only person who has been fired is the person who said we were going to have a problem there's something wrong with that. and i commend senator bennet for his leadership to fix this problem, to build the hospital and to give our veterans what they were promised. and i thank the presiding officer, the president for his time today. and i thank the chairman of the committee for enduring this conversation this morning. i yield back my time. the presiding officer: who yields time? the senator from arizona.

mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent staff members of the committee on armed services be granted the privilege to the floor at all times during the senate's consideration of votes relating to h.r. 1735, the national defense authorization act for the fiscal year 2016. 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: thank you mr. president. mr. president, the amendment pending before us now is the portman amendment, the senator from ohio. we spoke about it yesterday. first, let me recognize that he is trying to assist the army in modifying and modernizing the

stryker. but i want to raise concerns i have about the amendment and i know senator portman will be here shortly to make a final point on the amendment. the amendment will add $71 million in funding for procurement, research and development of the lethality upgrades of the stryker program. i don't have to tell anyone around here we're in a very tough budget situation and we have to look very closely at every request. the traditional way it's done is that there will be in the president's budget the request by the service department, including the department of army. and then the army will submit an unfunded requirements list, those priority elements that have not made the cut, if you will into the president's budget. andths done in march. i -- and this was done in march. i understand this whole requirement for the stryker lethality upgrades came in in april, and there's an issue of

unfortunate timing. but nevertheless, because we did not have the opportunity to look at this as part of the overall unfunded requirements list, nor the army, for that matter, we really don't have a sense of the priority. is this the most important program that we can invest $371 million at this moment for the benefit of the army? and, therefore, i am very concerned that we're sort of moving forward without the full and careful analysis both by the department of the army and by the committee. and we need at this particular moment, difficult time, to have that type of analysis. the other issue is this is the first step in a multiyear process. it is not quite sure how much additional funding will be needed over the next several years. it is clear from the army that additional funding will be needed. we are at this time without the usual review by the army and by

the committee committing ourselves perhaps to significant funding going forward. the president estimates it will cost $3.8 million per vehicle and they plan to upgrade about 81 vehicles. but it's something that, again could be more expensive over several years. the funding in the vast majority of it is going to be dedicated to one plant in a single state. and indeed i think and generally and appropriately the concern of the senator from ohio because most of the work will be done in ohio. and i think again he should be commended for being interested in what's happening in his home state. so i appreciate the demands but i just don't think this has gone through the process sufficiently enough for us to make that type

of commitment today on the floor, and i would be opposing it right now. i also point out to other factors. first, the army has the capability going forward if this program becomes so critical and they raise it to high priority to request a reprogramming of funds to move money from one less significant priority to this program. that's an option that you have, and that's an option they may well choose to use. but it will only be after their careful consideration of the other priorities that are facing the army. and i think that's the way a better way to do it. the other fact that i would point out is the pay-for for this program is the foreign currency accounts. basically that's a hedge within the department of defense for their international transactions and the value of the u.s. dollar versus other currencies. well the dollar is strong, and so there appears to be

additional excess funds in that account. but currency over the next year could change dramatically. and we've already put significant pressure on this supposed excess funding. we have reduced by about $550 million the request of the department of defense for this hedge fund, if you will, against currency changes in the world going forward in their acquisition process. i know the house has used more, but i think we've been careful not to try to put too much weight on this account. so for all these reasons i would urge my colleague to oppose the amendment. there is an opportunity for the department of the army later to reprogram funds if it's necessary. i think this should have been done in the context of a careful review of all their priorities so we know exactly where it stands. and again, i think we're putting too much pressure on this

currency account. it might turn out to evaporate the supposed savings. and with that, mr. president, i would at this point yield the floor since i see the senator from ohio has arrived. mr. portman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: mr. president yesterday i talked about an amendment that is absolutely crucial that we include in this legislation. again, i commend the chairman, senator mccain, and the ranking member, senator reed, for their work on this underlying bill. but there is something missing. it's very clear to everybody who's looking at this issue objectively, particularly what's going on right now on the eastern border of the ukraine. we do not have the ability in europe because we've pulled our armored units out, to be able to say with credibility that we have the capacity to address the very real challenge now unfortunately, that's emerging in europe. so last night as some of you know russian and separatist

forces launched an offensive again. i'm told that it is the largest attack since the february minsk agreement. this is what so many concluded including president poroshenko is things are heating up again on the border of the ukraine. the nato forces, the united states in particular, need to make sure they have in europe the ability at least to have credibility to say we can respond to this. we've moved our armored units out -- meaning there are not abrams tanks there except for a few units in the baltics on a temporary basis this spring. i visited them a couple of months ago. they're doing a terrific job but they're leaving. what the army has said is we want to allow our troops who were there to be able to up-armor particularly with a weapon a .30 millimeter cannon rather than a 50 caliber machine gun on our stryker vehicles to be able to have some credibility there to be able to say we have

armored units in europe that can respond to these new challenges. the army's asked for this. the army wants this. they're pleading for it because the soldiers who are there know that they can't be able to perform their mission without this enhanced capability. now we had this debate yesterday on the floor and i don't think that senator reed and other democrats necessarily disagree with the substance of this amendment. what they have said is they're concerned about the pay-for. well let's talk about the pay-for. the pay-for is taking us out of an account that is already being used for other purposes. it's already being used by the house armed services committee. in fact, the house armed services committee has already taken more funds out of this account than all the funds in the sasse committee the senate committee, plus this amount that i believe ought to be taken out of this account. this is called the foreign currency fluctuation account at the department of defense. g.a.o., which is the body that looks at these issues from our

perspective, from a legislative branch perspective -- they are the auditors -- g.a.o. estimated the pentagon will have $1.86 billion in surpluses by -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has sprierd. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent for three additional moments. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. portman: so g.a.o. has looked at this. they said there is $1.86 billion in surplus from these fluctuation accounts at the end of fiscal year 2016. they have actually updated their figures now with recent data and adjusted the 2016 surplus higher to $2.02 billion. no one has produced a currency projection to counter the g.a.o. estimate. we're talking about over $2 billion in this account that's available. by the way the money we're talking about here is not going to be used for other readiness requirements. this money will be sitting in a reserve fund. the pentagon doesn't need to be sitting on this size of a reserve fund especially a slush

fund. when we have these needs that have been identified, the army has made a formal request for these, they have asked for assistance here. these deployed units need this assistance. they said they need it. we ought to put this to good use, namely for an urgent requirement like this. if you look at the house bill versus the senate bill, the house has used more of this funding in this reserve fund, this slush fund, than we have used even when you include this additional requirement that i'm talking about today. so this notion that somehow we can't do this because the offset isn't good, it just doesn't make any sense. it doesn't fit with what g.a.o. has said. it doesn't fit with what the house has done. so i don't know what the objection is, but i tell you what, if you vote against this, then you are saying that our troops in europe ought not to have the capability they have asked for they need. admittedly this came late, and i'm sorry about that. and it should have come with it sooner. this was a requirement that they had identified, but they had identified needing it later by 2020. now they need it now and they

need it now because the situation has changed in europe. we have to be flexible to be able to respond to that cleaning. -- to that change. if we wait another 12 months, another year to do this, who knows what's going to happen. i know one thing having been in eastern europe recently. those countries in europe, our nato partners in particular but also ukraine, they are looking to the united states of america to show the commitment that we have made on paper to ensure that we have that commitment in terms of our capability on the ground in europe. again, this is an issue where i think we should come together as democrats and republicans. it is a bipartisan amendment. i commend senator peters for identifying this need with the army. i understand senator reed's concern that this came late in the process but it's here. the request has been made. and i would sure hope that we would be able to come together today, given what's happening right now on the oorn border of ukraine, to ensure that we send a strong message that, a the a

minimum, we're going to meet these requirements that the army has insisted that they need to be able to give our troops what they need to be able to keep the peace in this important part of the world. i thank you for time, mr. president. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment and i yield back my time. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: mr. president again, i recognize the way the senator from ohio is articulating a need of the military. the question is, how high the priority you is. one point i'd like to make is we do understand acutely the crisis in the crimea, et cetera. the availability of this equipment would not be ip stantainious. -- instantaneous. it would take many, many months to do the up-grade, to do the evaluation, et cetera. i think the best approach would be to allow the department of the army to make a judgment, to reprogram, if necessary and to get this program moving. with that, i would yield.

the presiding officer: under the previous order the question now occurs on amendment number 1522 offered by the senator from ohio, mr. portman. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not the yeas are 61. the nays are 34. and the amendment is agreed to. under the previous order the question now occurs on amendment number 1540 offered by the senator from rhode island, mr. reed for mr. bennet. if there is no further debate, all those in favor say aye. all those opposed nay. the ayes have it.

the amendment is agreed to. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: thank you madam president. madam president, i now ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment in order to call up amendment number 1473. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from louisiana, mr. vitter, proposes an amendment dmumed 1473 -- amendment numbered 1473. mr. vitter: i ask to dispense with the reading of the amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. vitter: thank you. later i'll return to the floor to lay out more fully what this amendment does but fundamentally it tries to put our force structure, the component of teams as the pentagon, as the defense department deals with

curtailed resources. i'm very concerned as are so many of us, madam president that as defense budgets are cut personnel and core resources in terms of end strength, including brigade combat teams will suffer cuts that go well beyond fat into meat and bone. we need to limit that. we need to avoid that. and this amendment would do that with regard to brigade combat teams. it does not increase spending. it retains as much flexibility as possible for the department of defense. i think it meets an important goal in a balanced, reasonable way. and i look forward to continuing this discussion, madam president, toward a vote in favor of this amendment. thank you, and i yield the floor. mr. mccain: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona.

mr. mccain: madam president for the benefit of members an agreement with senator reed, we will be having shaheen amendment followed by side-by-side markey and cornyn. and those votes we are planning on but haven't confirmed will probably be around 1:45. and that would complete our activities. but that is not totally agreed to, but that's the plan. mr. reed: madam chairman, also i believe we anticipate taking up by vote the tillis amendment? mr. mccain: and we'll be looking at hopefully a managers' package as well. madam president, i yield the floor.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: madam president, i rise to discuss amendment number 1494, which i believe would move our nation one step closer

toward finally securing equal protection under the law for veterans in the united states. i want to thank the other cosponsors of this amendment senators leahy durbin, brown hirono blumenthal, baldwin schatz peters, markey, whitehouse, coons and wyden. this amendment would end the current prohibition on benefits for gay and lesbian veterans and their families who live in states that do not recognize same-sex marriage. my amendment is based on the charlie morgan military spouses equal treatment act, which i was proud to reintroduce earlier this year. the bill is named for charlie morgan a former soldier and chief warrant officer in the new hampshire and kentucky national guards. charlie was a military veteran with a career spanning more than 30 years. i first met charlie in 2011. she was on her way home from deployment in kuwait, and she had just been diagnosed for a

second time with breast cancer. concern for her wife, carn, and their young daughter's well-being charlie became an outspoken critic of the defense of marriage act which at the time prohibited her spouse and child from receiving the benefits that she had earned during her service. sadly, charlie did not live to see the supreme court overturn the defense of marriage act in 2013. however, because of her example her leadership and her courageous advocacy, our nation took another historic step toward ensuring equal treatment and civil rights for all. despite the supreme court overturning the defense of marriage act, there are still provisions remaining in the u.s. code that deny equal treatment to lgbt families. one of those provisions is in title 38, which deals with veterans' benefits. today if you're a gay veteran living in a state like new

hampshire that recognizes same-sex marriage, your family is entitled to all the benefits you've earned through your military service. however, a veteran with the exact same status, the same service record, same injuries, same family obligations but living in a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage will receive less. the impact of this discrimination is very real. monthly benefits are less. spouses and children are not eligible for medical care at the v.a., and families are not eligible for the same death benefits. there are even reports that v.a. has -- the v.a. has required gay veterans to pay back benefits because their state will not recognize their marriage. in one case, a young woman a 50% disabled combat veteran was initially approved for benefits for her wife and child but later told by the v.a. that because of

where she lived and who she loved, she was not only going to lose a portion of her benefits, the v.a. was also going to withhold her future payments until she paid the v.a. back. this is just disgraceful. to cut the benefits earned by a combat veteran and then also require that she pay back the v.a. all because of who she married and where she lives. perhaps the most frustrating part of this story is knowing that if this woman moved across the border to another state she would have no problems with the v.a. my amendment would fix this issue for these men and women who have volunteered to serve in our armed forces. they have volunteered to put themselves in harm's way to leave their families and their homes, to travel around the world to protect america and our way of life. and yet they are being deprived of the very rights they have risked their lives to protect.

so again let's be clear what we're talking about. the supreme court has ruled it is unconstitutional to deny federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples and their children, and yet due to unrelated provisions of the federal code, state legislatures have the ability to indirectly deny federal benefits to certain disabled veterans and their families. solely because they are in a same-sex marriage. it is unjust and according to the supreme court it is unconstitutional. now, my amendment is not new to the senate. last congress, the veterans' affairs committee approved it by a voice vote, and earlier this year 57 senators voted in favor of a budget resolution amendment on this issue. now, when we vote, hopefully very soon on this amendment senators will have the opportunity to end an unjust and

unconstitutional provision of law that discriminates against veterans. you know, many of us talk about the need to honor the service of our veterans, to make sure they have access to the care they deserve, and we should all do that but if you believe that all veterans, regardless of their sexual orientation deserve equal access to the benefits they have risked their lives for regardless of where you live, then you will vote in favor of this amendment, and i strongly urge my colleagues to support passage of this amendment when it comes up to a vote. thank you madam president. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: madam president i want to rise and commend the senator from new hampshire and i think one of the best indications of the appropriate direction of this policy is that the department of defense extends benefits regardless of state law to all military

personnel, and i think consistent with the department of defense that this approach should be adopted by the veterans' affairs administration also. and so i commend the senator and i think it's the right thing to do the consistent thing to do and the logical thing to do. and with that, madam president i'd yield the floor. mrs. shaheen: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: i would like to thank senator reed, a member of the armed services committee who also has a distinguished military career of his own for his support of this effort and his understanding of how important this is to so many veterans who have served. thank you.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: i thank you madam president. i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up an amendment that i have at the desk, markey number 1645.

the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from massachusetts, mr. markey, proposes an amendment numbered 1645 to amendment numbered 1463. at the end of subtitle g title 10 add -- mr. markey: i ask unanimous consent that we dispense with the reading and i be recognized to explain my amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. markey: thank you madam president. madam president, what we're about to do is have a discussion about whether or not the united states of america should start exporting our oil. exporting our oil. now, ladies and gentlemen, the united states right now along with china is the largest importer of oil in the world.

we are not exactly at but very near to the level of imports of oil in our country that we were back in 1975 when we put a ban on the exportation of oil in our country. now, why is that important? well it's important for a lot of reasons. number one if we begin to export our oil in the united states, a new barclay's report found that the united states consumer last year saved $11.4 billion at the pump because of the lowest united states crude prices in a long time and that we would

potentially save upwards of $10 billion in prices for consumers at the pump in the united states of america. now, we understand the oil industry. here's what happens. the world price is set it's called the brent price. the brent price is the world price of oil. that price is traditionally higher much higher than the price of crude oil in the united states that's produced in the united states. that's west texas intermediate. that's a price set in cushing, oklahoma. now, if you're an oil company you want to get our u.s. crude out on to the world market because they will then be able to sell it for a much higher price. what's wrong with that? what's wrong with that is the american consumers won't get that oil at the lower price and

we'll still have to import oil into our country because we are still short by millions of barrels of oil per day. so the consumer in america is the one who will be paying this tax on their price at the pump. that's the essence of what this whole strategy is about it's to get the oil companies the highest price for oil which is on the world market. but who's going to pay? who's going to have their pockets tipped upside down at the pump and have money shaken out of it so they have to pay a higher price? it will be the consumers. if we want to give more money to the defense budget, let's just do it. let's have a big debate about increasing the defense budget. let's let's have that debate. but let's not have the american consumer at the pump be a special tax that's imposed in order to help our allies

overseas. because ultimately, of course, there is a beautiful axis where the oil industry is going yes sir, we're willing to put our crude out on ships and send it overseas. it's just a bad bad economic policy for our country. we're already paying a high price at home. so this exportation of our oil would also defy what our own department of energy is saying. our department of energy is saying that in 2020 our oil production in america is going to peak and then we're going to begin to go down once again in our oil production. who is saying this? our government. who is saying this? the energy information agency of the united states of america. so what we're engaging in here is a premature attempt to export

oil with the likelihood that by 2019 and 2020 our oil production is going to start to go down again. it also hurts our domestic oil refining industry. the energy information administration has found that by lifting this ban on the exportation of our own domestic crude could lead to a fundamental reduction in the amount of investment made by the american refining industry here on our own soil. $9 billion less would be invested because the oil would be sent overseas. the crude oil would get refined overseas. it wouldn't be refined here in our own country with american workers and american companies

doing it here on our own soil, helping our economy here. this decision, by the way that members are going to be asked to make today is opposed by the afghanistan so so -- the afl-cio, by the steelworkers, it's opposed by the league of conservation voters, by the sierra club, by public citizen, and by an entire group of american refiners. so this is no radical coalition that's been put together. it's about as broad a base of interest in our own country that wants to make america stronger, and how in the world can we be strong if we're exporting oil while we're still importing oil? because we'll have to import the same amount that we're now

exporting under this amendment that is being made by the senator from texas and we'll wind up with ultimately the price being paid by the american consumer at the pump. and so from my perspective this is about as desperate an attempt which the oil industry can have to get out from underneath the 1975 law. they've been looking for an opportunity. but obviously the instability in the middle east should make us very cautious at this time. the oil fields of saudi arabia are now very vulnerable. they're right on the border.

the huthi being supported by iran right at the bottom of the red sea makes that juncture very vulnerable to a cut-off of oil coming into the world economy. this shiite-sunni war is something that we have to be very conscious of because isis is targeting those areas in syria, in iraq in yemen that have oil resources. we need a big debate in our country about oil and war in the middle east. we're at a pivotal point here where the ottoman empire and all of the lines that were drawn back 100 years ago are being erased and with it the

protection of oil resources in the middle east. we should just not have a debate out here on the senate floor about cavalierly lifting the ban on exportation of oil. we should have a debate about what this war in country after country and oil area after oil area means for our country. and i would say to you that we should err in a way that's going to protect our own economy. that's what makes us strong. that's what makes it possible for us to project the power around the world. it is that we are the strongest economy in the world. and the indispensable life's blood of economic growth is low energy cost for every single industry and every single consumer. it puts more money in their pockets. this decision that the gentleman

from texas amendment asks us to make will send us in the wrong direction. so this is a disaster for consumers in our country. it is a disaster for the refiners in our country. and it is a disaster for the national security of our country. we should keep our resources here at home for american families american businesses, to enhance our national security using america and our economy as the basis for how we project power around the world. for every barrel of oil that we export we're going to have to import another barrel of oil from some other place. we should have the debate here on the senate floor about where that oil will be coming back into our country because we still need three four million

extra barrels of oil a day. that's a national security consideration that we have to deal with, which country are we going to call up, which country are we going to ask to send us their oil what are the implications for our national security of having a phone call go to country after country probably not just to the oil companies but our government beginning new negotiations to get even more oil coming here as we export the oil that we should be keeping here. the saudis have been our friends historically. we have no guarantee that the saudis are even going to be running that country. let's be honest about it. let's talk about that. let's debate it. isis has taken over oil fields in syria. isis has taken over areas of oil production in iraq. let's have a debate about that. that's what we should be debating.

how is that oil now funding isis how is that oil now being used by iran? potentially in yemen in other parts of the world. to undermine american interests. in one part of the world in yemen, we want it back -- to back the sunnis against the shiites. in iran, we're backing moderate sunnis against shiites. in iraq, we're backing the shiites against radical sunnis trying to get moderate sunnis to help us. all of it, by the way with oil as if not the then one of the central issues in each one of these countries. to have a resolution here today to be saying we should be exporting oil no, ladies and

gentlemen, that's not how we should be discussing this issue. how did we get into the middle east? we got into the middle east, yes, protecting israel, but we got in because of our addiction to oil. not my words. president bush's words. we have to break our dependence upon imported oil. increasing fuel economy standards, that's a big part of it. having this fracking revolution to produce more oil here, that's part of it. and renewables, that's a big part of it. but we're still at the earliest stages of this strategy. we we've completed it, know we're successful, then let's talk about the generosity we're going to expect from consumers at the pump to pay higher prices for gasoline. so again this is an issue that the american people

overwhelmingly want to see resolved in a way that keeps american oil in america. if we're going to continue to export young men and women from america over to the middle east east then we should not be exporting our oil at the same time. that makes no sense. no sense. and it's disrespectful to the sacrifice young men and women are making over in the middle east in order to protect our interests, to start an economic policy of exporting imported oil while we still need to import it. so this issue to me is central to our overall long-term national security and economic interests, and i urge an aye vote on the amendment and i ask for a roll call on the amendment, madam president.

the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? at the moment there is not. mr. markey: madam president i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: madam president i have eight unanimous consent requests for committees to meet 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. thune: thank you madam president. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. barrasso: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you madam president.

madam president, first i ask unanimous consent that major --. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. barrasso: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: madam president i ask unanimous consent that major justin korkalski for the office of senator roy blunt are granted floor privileges during the consideration of h.r. 1735 the national defense authorization act. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you madam president. madam president, this morning majority leader mcconnell spoke about the skyrocketing costs, the broken promises and the repeated failures of the president's health care law. he pointed out specifically how so many americans are facing double-digit premium increases because of obamacare. in his home state of kentucky, some people face proposed increases as high as 25%. he noted that some people in indiana could be hit with a 46% jump in their premiums. so how did democratic leader

reid respond to the news of double digit premium increases? he said that people are extremely satisfied with health care. he said that the people that the majority leader mcconnell spoke about are having increases that are -- quote -- "very very minimal." i'd like to repeat that. the democratic leader on the floor of the senate today called premium increases of 25% and 46% very very minimal. what world is he living in? how on earth can senate democrats believe that americans are satisfied with their health care when they are facing double-digit premium increases? how on earth can the senate democratic leader believe these increases are very, very minimal? it's shocking. the democrats have their head in the sand about the health care

law. you can pick up "investors business daily" monday, june 1 obamacare soaring to $6,500 for the silver level plan. pick up "the wall street journal," friday, may 2722, health insurers seek big increases. "investors business daily" today, obamacare enrollment mystery, two million young adults missing they are not signing up and there are plenty of good ropes why and it's not because it's a good deal for them. no matter how bad it gets, no matter how unaffordable it is, president obama and the democrats in congress absolutely refuse to face the reality. they refuse to help americans who continue to be hurt by this law, and i'm going to talk a little bit about the reality of the law and why republicans are committed to helping all americans finally have access to affordable care. because we all remember when

president obama promised that his health care law would cause insurance premiums to go down. down by an average of $2,500 per year per family. so where do we stand now? a couple of weeks ago was the deadline for insurance companies to say when they intended to charge -- what they intended to charge people for health care next year. this is the first time that companies have been able to set their prices based on a full year of information about how many obamacare actually costs. from what we've seen so far the cost is enormous. a lot of americans are going to be shocked by how much more their health insurance will be. these higher premiums are just the latest evidence that obamacare is an expensive failure. we've seen reports about the largest insurance company in new mexico saying it wants to raise rates by almost 52% next year. the biggest insurer in tennessee

wants to raise its rates 36%. in maryland, the largest insurer is planning to increase premiums by more than 30%. but yet we hear senator reid on the floor of the senate this morning saying these things don't matter. people who in the president's home state of illinois right now are facing an average premium increase of more than 30%. seems like there's another headline every day about how expensive health care insurance is becoming. "wall street journal" tax cuts, insurers seek big premium increases. i know there are some supporters of the law who like to say millions of people have insurance under obamacare. well, how many of them are actually going to be paying these double-digit rate increases next year because of obamacare? that's what americans want to know. on monday, the obama administration released information on rate hikes for people living in about 41

states. turns out 676 different health insurance plans, different obamacare insurance plans offered for sale in these 41 states plan to raise their rates by double digits. by at least double digits. the average increase is 21%. about six million people getting their insurance in these plans will face double-digit rate increases next year. to democrats who voted for -- do democrats who voted for obamacare think a 21% rate increase is affordable? do they think a double digit increase will help these six million hardworking americans? the numbers are so large it's hard to even understand what they mean for a typical person because what does it mean for health insurance policies in maryland where they might have an average rate increase of 30%, how does that impact someone's life, their quality of life? let's say you're a 40-year-old nonsmoker living in annapolis

maryland. outby a silver plan from care first blue cross/blue shield. that's the biggest insurer in maryland. the most popular kind of plan. according to "the wall street journal" study your rates would go from about $2,900 for the year to nearly $3,700 next year. that's an $800 a year increase. the president promised it would be down $2,500. now it's gone up $800. that's how expensive obamacare has become. it's far more costly than people thought it was going to be that the insurers thought it was going to cost, far more costly than the american people were told it was going to be. now, i've heard some democrats who support this law say that these are just the requested rates. they say that we shouldn't worry because state insurance agencies won't allow the huge rate increases to take effect. well, care first the company in maryland that wants a 30%

rate increase next year, they raised their rates 16% last year. hardworking people across the country are going to have to pay these enormous premiums. because the president mandates they buy it. and many of them still won't able to actually use their insurance because the deductibles and the co-pays are so high. this year the average deductible for an obamacare silver plan is almost $3,000 a person, more than $6,000 a family. you have to ask why are costs going up so much, so fast? that's what a radio station in kansas city, missouri asked kcur-fm. they reported last week on may 27 the premiums for some plans in kansas are going to go up 38%. according to the radio station the increase appears to be driven by requirements in the affordable care act also known as obamacare. that's what they report. so the kansas state insurance

department said it was because of things like all of the mandates the coverage mandates in the law. families are not paying for coverage that's more than they need more than they want, more than they can afford, a spokesman for the state insurance agency in kansas told the radio station these things cost money. so what do people think about these enormous increases in their premiums? are people happy about all the extra money that they have to pay because of obamacare? well let's look at connecticut. in connecticut people have been writing to the state insurance department, and they're angry and they're frustrated about the obamacare price hikes. now, the interesting thing is one person wrote i find it outrageous that the rates for 2016 are going to increase he says by 6.7%, which was a request in connecticut. the person goes on -- where do you think i'm going to get the money? i do not get a raise every year

based on your every-year rate increase. so this is something who's having a hard time with a rate increase of only 6.7%. imagine how tough it's going to be for families all around the country who have to pay 20% or 30% or 40% more next year for their obamacare-mandated insurance. thousands of families across the country are facing these shocking rate increases and it might just be the beginning. you know, madam president sometime this month the supreme court's expected to decide an important case called king vs. burwell. this case is about the i.d.'s subsidies that some people get to help pay obamacare's alarmingly high costs. the health care law said that washington could subsidize the premiums of people who buy insurance through exchanges established by the states. president obama knew that that wouldn't be enough because he knew that his law was going to

make insurance premiums skyrocket. so he told his administration to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize insurance in the federal exchange as well. democrats in congress wrote the law to allow subsidies for one group, and then the president then decided to pay them out for another group. so if the supreme court decides that the president overstepped his authority, there are going to be a lot of people who could be facing paying the full cost of their obamacare plans without the subsidy. they're going to see just how expensive this obamacare insurance is and just how destructive the democrats' health care law has been. let's face it. in spite of what the minority leader says on the floor of the senate obamacare has been a disaster. it's bad for patients. it's bad for providers. it has been terrible to the american taxpayers. hardworking americans working

every day to try to put food on the table and pay their taxes as well. republicans are offering better solutions, real solutions that will end these outrageous and expensive obamacare side effects. that means giving americans freedom, choice and control over their health care decisions. republicans understand that hardworking american families can't afford obamacare any longer. democrats need to admit that their health care law has been and continues to be an expensive failure. if they're ready to do that, then republicans will work with them to help give people the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower cost. thank you madam president. i yield the floor.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: i ask unanimous consent that my national security fellow, robert paladino be given floor privileges through the end of this congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. gillibrand: thank you. madam president, i rise today to speak on my amendment number 1578 the military justice improvement act to ensure that survivors of military sexual assault have access to an unbiased and professionalized military justice system. last year, despite earning the support of 55 senators, a coalition spanning the entire ideological spectrum, including both the majority and minority leaders, our bill to create an independent military justice system free of inherent advice and conflicts of interest within the chain of command fell short of overcoming the 60-vote filibuster threshold. but as we said then, we will not

walk away. we will continue to fight to strengthen our military because it's our duty. it's our oversight role in congress to act as if the brave survivors are our sons and daughters, our spouses who are being betrayed by the greatest military on earth. we owe them at least that. over the last few years congress has forced the military to make many incremental changes to address the crisis, and after two decades of complete failure and lip service to zero tolerance, the military now says essentially trust us, we've got this. they spin the data, hoping nobody will dig below the top lines, because when you do, the real conclusion is survivors still have so little faith in the system and that the military has not dented the problem. even after much-lauded reforms the estimate for 2014 is still

20,000, 20,000 cases of sexual assault and unwanted sexual contact, the same level as 2010, an average of 52 a day. a much-touted reform made retaliation a crime. that made a lot of sense. but a sky-high rate of 62% retaliation remains unchanged from two years ago. the system remains plagd -- plagued with distrust and does not provide fair and just process that the survivors deserve. simply put the military has not held up to the standard posed by general dempsey one year ago when he said we are on the clock, if you will. the president said to us in december you've got about one year to review this thing and if we haven't been able to demonstrate we are making a difference, you know, then we deserve to be held to the scrutiny and standard. so i am urging my colleagues to hold the military to that higher standard. enough is enough with the

excuses and with the promises, because throughout the last year, we have continued to see new evidence of how much farther we actually have to go to solve this problem. we have a very simple choice. we can keep waiting hoping that the reforms we put in place -- that we actually forced the military to put in place will somehow restore trust in the system while an average of 52 new lives are shattered every day, three quarters of whom will never come forward because they see what happens around them. they don't trust the system. they don't see how justice is possible because commanders hold all the cards. or we can do the right thing and act. we can accept a system where according to the d.o.d. themselves three out of four servicewomen and nearly half of servicemen say sexual harassment is common or very common, or we can do the right thing and act. we can accept a system where

women who were swawlly harassed were 1400% more likely to be sexually assaulted the same year or we can act. we can accept a climate where supervisors and unit leaders were responsible for sexual harassment and gender discrimination in nearly 60% of all cases or we can act. my friends, i believe it is time that we provide our service members with an unbiased justice system one that is professionalized where the decisionmaker is trained in military justice. it is time to finally listen to the survivors who have told us over and over again that this reform required to instill long-lost confidence in the system. it's very much time to do the right thing and act because every time we look at this problem, it seems to get worse. my office just reviewed 107 sexual assault case files from

the largest base of each of the services. we requested these files and that was for one year of sexual assaults. we requested this data to understand what actually happens once the reports are filed how they're investigated, how they move forward within the military justice system to see if there is any other challenges we have to address. it took the pentagon a year to respond to my document request. these 107 files were just a snapshot of the thousands of estimated cases that occur annually. what we found which was unexpected was an alarming rate of assault among two survivor groups that are not represented in the d.o.d. survey. the d.o.d. surveys all service members. but what we found is that civilian women and military spouses are not counted in that survey and of these 107 cases 53% the survivor was either a military spouse or a civilian. these two categories of

survivors are hidden in the shadows. according to the d.o.d. themselves the real scope of this problem unfortunately is much larger than the 20,000 that were estimated for last year alone. these obviously aren't just numbers. these are real lives being broken and they deserve a fair shot at justice. it should disturb everyone in this chamber that instead of hope for justice at these four military basis nearly half of the survivors who initially filed a complaint some of them going through the medical exams going through system, going through evidence, so nearly half that filed withdrew their complaint during the process before trial. so what does that tell us? is that a form of retaliation taking place? is it just a lack of faith in the system? to have about half of these cases not move forward is really troubling. and even when a case did move forward, just over 20% of them

went to trial and only 10% of these cases resulted in sexual assault convictions with penalties of confinement and dishonorable discharge. 10%. only 10% ended in conviction. the cases that did proceed to trial but failed to obtain a sexual assault conviction typically resulted in a more lenient penalty such as a reduction in rank or docked pay. and then there was a new report published by the human rights watch. they issued a report which told us that service members who reported a sexual assault were 12 times more likely to suffer retaliation than see their offender get convicted of sexual offense. let me repeat that. a survivor who reports a sexual assault is 12 times more likely to suffer retaliation than see justice. how can anyone say that this is a system that our survivors can actually have faith in?

despite the d.o.d.'s reported 62% retaliation rate -- and this is so troubling -- there was not evidence of a single serious disciplinary action against anyone for retaliation. not one. not one disciplinary action for 62% of survivors who are retaliated against. that borders on the impossible. but the reality is without independent review, we are actually relying on commanders to charge himself for retaliation. it doesn't make any sense. according to the d.o.d.'s own report retaliation remains at 62% for women. over one-third experienced administrative action. and 40% faced other forms of professional retaliation. that means your job changes in some meaningful way. d.o.d. admits that they have made zero progress since 2012. the carefully crafted and widely

bipartisan military justice improvement act is designed to reduce the systemic failure that survivors of military sexual assault describe in deciding whether to report the crimes committed against them due to the bias and inherent conflicts of interest posed by the military chain of command's current sole decisionmaking power over whether a case moves forward. this reform actually protects both the victim and the accused. we do not want to see an innocent person convicted any more than we want to see a guilty person go free. due process professionalism training, equal opportunity to justice is how we restore a broken system. it's time to move the sole decisionmaking power over whether serious crimes akin to a felony go to trial from a chain of command into the hands of nonbiased professionally trained military prosecutors where it belongs, and we do this while

leaving military crimes in the chain of command so we completely carve out anything that's military related such as missing in action or not -- honoring command. in fact, the decision whether to prosecute the vast majority of crimes including 37 serious crimes uniquely military in nature plus all punishable crimes that have less than a year of confinement as a penalty remain in the chain of command. the brave men and women we send to war to keep us safe deserve nothing less than a justice system that's actually equal to their sacrifice. we owe that at least to them. thank you madam president and i suggest that there is an be a spence of a quorum -- i suggest that there is an absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: may i inquire are we in a quorum call? i seek that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kaine: thank you madam president. i rise in support of the ndaa that's on the floor now but also in strong support of an amendment that has been offered by senator reed of rhode island to the ndaa. and actually i have a deja vu feeling in this speech because the speech is largely about what i gave as my maiden speech in february of 2013 that is the budget caps and sequester. to begin before i focus on the amendment for my colleague the ranking member of the armed services committee i do think there's a lot of good policy in the ndaa. we worked on it together, the committee process is a produce one, i think we always find a

great deal of bipartisanship as we try to tackle the programmatic description of the nation's military budget and support. and there's much good policy acquisition reform and other key reforms that are part of this budget, there are some things i feel very strongly about dealing with shipbuilding and ship repair, and i think it's great that we're having the debate on the floor. we've had ndaas pass but haven't had a lot of floor time on them in 2013 and 2014 so the fact we're having this debate about the critical nature of our nation's defense and the authorizing bill on the floor that's very, very positive. there are some aspects of the ndaa that i don't like, there are some things i wish were in blah that are not but that's part of the process and i think we can all say that but i'm glad we're having the debate on the floor. however, the thing that is in the ndaa that i have the greatest concern about is the use of what i consider a flagrant budget gimmick to sneak

by defense spending caps that were imposed by the 2011 budget control act. and i think the gimmick is a serious one and a challenging one, and the gimmick is dishonest, it is bad for the nation's defense and it is also bad for america's nondefense priorities. the good news is the budget can be fixed and my colleague from rhode island, the ranking member of the armed services committee, has a proposal to fix it. the proposal was offered in committee and rejected but it's going to be offered again on the floor. i want to describe it and explain why i strongly support it. first, the gimmick itself, just for the public on this, in august of 2011 before either of us were in the body, congress passed a budget control act that imposed a set of draconian budget caps on defense and nondefense spending as a punishment in case congress did

not find a grand budget deal. so the wisdom of this body at the time was we will sort of punish ourselves unless we can find a budget deal, i describe that colloquially, if we don't do something smart we'll do something stupid. congress didn't do something smart, there wasn't the budget deal many hoped there would be so march 1 of 2013, budget caps went into effect that put a significant crimp in both the defense and nondefense items in the nation's budget. the first speech i gave on the floor in february of 2013 after my first state recess week was i traveled around and heard from my citizens talk about how bad these caps would be, especially for the nation's defense and i stood up and just shared what my constituents had described to me. but nevertheless, the caps went into effect and we agreed through the early 2020's to

limit in a very significant and tough way both defense and nondefense spending. so what is the gimmick that is in the ndaa that's on the floor today? a decision was made that the world has changed since august of 2011. isil has grown up and is gobbling up acres and square miles of territory we're battling against ebola north korea is cyber attacking major american corporations, vladimir putin has moved into the ukraine and threatening other nations there are a lot of challenges and so it was the wisdom first of the president in submitting the 2016 budget and of the armed services committee that living under the defense cap is a bad idea. it would be a bad idea for the nation. but instead of just saying okay the cap's a bad idea, let's agist the cap which we can do with 60 votes in this body and the concurrence of the house, a decision was made let's not adjust the cap let's

end run the cap. and so we want to exceed the cap, we want to exceed it by $38 billion in 2016 but rather than adjust the cap let's do this take $38 billion that the nation needs to be safe and we'll put it in what's called the o.c.o. account. overseas contingency operation. it is something that's not subject to the cap it's supposed to be used for core war fighting activity. but the $38 billion doesn't represent core war fighting. we spent $2 billion in the last year, for example, in the war on isil. we're not going to spend $38 billion in the next year. no, instead we're going to fund all kinds of nonemergency, noncontingency nonwar fighting expenditures that would require an adjustment of the cap. we're just going to put them into the o.c.o. account kind of the slush fund and by doing that we end run the law of congress the budget control

act. madam president, i asserted and i strongly believe this is dishonest, it's bad for defense and bad for the nondefense account. it's dishonest. it's dishonest because if we need this money for defense we should fix the budget control caps. we shouldn't call expenditures for daily operations that aren't core war fighting, we shouldn't call them part of the o.c.o. account, that violates the way the o.c.o. account is treated and once we go down that path you'll see everything going into the o.c.o. account and we'll really end run. we're not being honest with ourselves but especially since we all know what the game is we're not being honest with the public. second putting this money the $38 billion in the o.c.o. account is bad for defense. defense needs the ability to plan. if we put the money in the o.c.o. account is it going to be there next year, isn't it going to be here, there's sort of a wink and a nod it will probably be here.

we ought to be acknowledging that these funds are needed and the base defense budget so that our defense d.o.d. personnel can plan that it will be there in the future. because that is probably our intent. it's bad for defense to put this in the o.c.o. account. and third it's bad for the nondefense accounts. if we're going to say the b.c.a. caps are bad and adjust them, instead of an ebb end run let's just them not just for the defense accounts but also the nondefense accounts because, madam president, as you and my colleagues here know, the nondefense accounts are critical to the nation's defense. the f.b.i. is nondefense. it's critical to the nation's defense. homeland security, critical to the nation's defense. the department of energy. the research we do in the d.o.e. is for -- much of the it for the reactors on nuclear carriers and nuclear subs. those get cut by budget caps, they're critical to defense we ought to be lifting the caps on the nondefense caps as well.

so the gimmick that's used is a gimmick, it's dishonest it hurts against it hurts nondefense accounts that are important to the nation. good news, there's a solution. we're doing this because we don't like the budget caps. that's why we're doing this, using the o.c.o. gimmick. and if we don't like the budget caps, we should fix them. we should find the 2015 version of the murray-ryan budget deal that was reached to that adjusted the budget caps. it absorbed sequesters caps but found targeted relief and that's what we should be doing showing the same leadership that was shown in 2013. i rise to say that the amendment that my colleague from rhode island our ranking member, proposes does exactly that. it does exactly that. it takes the $38 billion that is in our budget which i believe should be spent on defense and

it says this money should be spent on defense but it should be spent the right way as part of the base budget, not as part of o.c.o. it puts a fence around those dollars and says the money should there and is there for defense because the nation needs it but defense will keep the moneys from being utilized until we fix the b.c.a. caps on defense and nondefense accounts. and if we do fix the b.c.a. caps that money will be available and because of language included by the chair of the committee in the mark, fixing the budget caps would move the money from the o.c.o. account into the defense base budget where it should be. i think we all know what the right answer is here. which is for this $38 billion to be used to protect the nation but to be part of the base budget not the o.c.o. account, and to get there, we need to fix the b.c.a. caps for defense and nondefense, the

reed amendment would accomplish that and so that is the reason i'm here on the floor today to praise the debate on the ndaa but to say that is the right way to keep our nation safe. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent at 1:45 today the senate vote in relation to the following amendments, shaheen number 1494, spouse definition kills number 1506, c-130 aircraft. i ask further there be no second-degree amendments in order to any of these amendments prior to the votes and that the shaheen amendment be subject to a 60 affirmative vote threshold for adoption. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mccain: madam president on behalf of senator paul of kentucky, i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment in order to call up amendment number 1543.

mr. reed: mr. chairman, could i note the absence of a quorum. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent i ask unanimous consent proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. i rise with my colleague senator flake to speak about an amendment he and i and senator blumenthal from connecticut have as part of this pending legislation. along with sports fans across america, i was appalled to learn last month that many of the ceremonies honoring members of our armed services at nfl games are not actuallily being conducted out of a sense of patriotism but for profit in the form of millions of dollars in

taxpayers' money going from the department of defense to wealthy nfl franchises. in fact, nfl teams have received nearly $7 million in taxpayers' dollars over the last three years from contracts with the army national guard which includes public tributes to american soldiers, sailors and airmen and marines. our amendment would put an end to this shameful practice and ask the nfl to return those profits to charities supporting our troops, veterans and their families. all americans can agree sports unite us, especially football. football has brought together people from every walk of life from the first organized football game between russ guess and princeton in 1869 to super bowl xlix played in february which attracted more than 1 hoop hundred million television viewers, the most watched tv program in history.

football has been a uniting force for our nation every weekend from peewee to high school college and the nfl through good seasons and bad the common cause and bitter rivalry, millions of passionate fans are bonded together. for many americans football is deeply patriotic and woven into the fabric of our country's history and heritage and for several weeks every fall this patriotic spirit grows when the nfl takes time to honor the service and sacrifice of the brave young americans serving in the united nations armed forces. teams wear especial camouflage uniforms. we've all been heartened by these displays from the giant oversized flags and color guard pregame performances to halftime tributes to our hometown heroes. every fan whether united by team or divided by rivalry comes

together to thank those who have served and sacrificessed on our nation's behalf. that's why i and so many other americans were shocked and disappointed to learn that several nfl teams weren't sponsoring these activities out of the goodness of their own hearts but were doing so to make an extra buck. taking money from the american taxpayers in exchange for honoring american troops. that means many of the color guard performances and troop recognition ceremonies were actually funded with american tax dollars and pocketed by wealthy nfl teams. for example, the army national guard spent $675,000 under contracts with the new england patriots hardly a deprived franchise, that included a program called true patriot in which the team honored guard soldiers at halftime shows during home games. other contracts funded color guard performances, flag

ceremonies and appearance fees to players for honoring local high school coaches and visiting students. according to information my office has received from the army national guard the nfl received nearly $7 million in taxpayers' dollars over the last three years from guard contracts for activities including pregame color guard ceremonies, pregame reenlistment ceremonies, pregame on-field american flag rollouts end game flag runners, halftime soldier recognition ceremonies, guard-sponsored high school player of the week and coach of the week awards and guard-sponsored player appearances at local high schools. the following teams had contracts in the past three years according to the army national guard. atlanta falcons $59,500 buffalo bills $550,000, chicago

bears, $443,000, cincinnati bengals, $117,000, $dallas cowboys, $262,500. denver broncos $460,000. detroit lions $193,000, indianapolis colts $400,000, miami dolphins, pam tampa bay bunk nears and jacksonville jaguars, $16 0*u. minnesota vikings $410,000, new orleans saints, $307,000, inure new york jet $212,500. oakland raiders $275,000, steel,$217,000 st. louis rams and kansas city cheervetion $60,000, san diego chargers, $450,500. san francisco 49ers $125,000, and seattle seahawks, $393,500.

what makes these expenditures all the more troubling is that at the same time the guard was as amended,ing millions on pro-sports advertising, it was also running out of money for critical training for our troops. in fact, at the end of fiscal year 2014, the national guard bureau and army national guard announced they were facing $101 million shortfall in the account used to pay national guardsmen and could force a delay in critical training and drills because they couldn't afford to pay soldiers. despite the fact that the guard was facing serious threats to meeting its primary mission and paying its current soldiers, it was spending millions of taxpayer dollars on sponsorship and advertising deals with professional sports leagues such as the nfl. this is obviously unacceptable. providing for our common defense is the highest duty of the federal government. at a time of crippling budget

cuts under sequestration the defense department can't afford to waste its limited resources for the benefit of sports leagues that rake in billions of dollars a year. each of the four service chiefs have warned before the senate armed services committee this year sequestration is damaging our military readiness and putting american lives in danger. we must conserve every precious defense dollar we have at our disposal which the ndaa does through the important reforms and which our amendment would support by ending taxpayer-funded soldier tributes at professional sports events. in addition to ending this shameful practice, this amendment calls upon professional sports leagues like the nfl to donate -- to donate -- these ill-gotten profits supporting charities supporting veterans and their families. the nfl raked in revenues

totaling some $9.5 billion the absolute least they can do to begin to make up for this mis-yument is to return those taxpayer dollars to charities supporting our troops, veterans and military families. i want to thank my fellow senator the from the state of arizona, jeff flake who has done terrific oversight of this issue, was the first to expose it. i also want to commend senator blumenthal for his long-standing commitment to our troops and veterans as well as the other members of this body who have supported our amendment. again, i want to thank jeff flake, who was the first to blow the whistle on this egregious use of american tax dollars and also senator blumenthal. madam president i yield the floor. mr. flake: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator froms a arizona. mr. flake: i want to thank the

senator for bringing this amendment forward. i with a nt to make a couple -- i want to make a couple of points here. we've asked the pentagon for a full accounting, not just nfl teams but other teams that have received such money. we want to make sure that this practice stops. part of the reason is needs to stop is these teams that were mentioned by the senator from arizona and other teams that have received this money do a lot for the military out of their goodness of their heart. they do a lot for the military and for veterans who return, and we shouldn't discount that and don't want to discount that. the problem is, when some teams are accepting money to do what has been termed "paid-for patriotism" then it cheapens all the other good work that is done by these sports teams and others. so it is important that we stop this practice and make sure that when fans are there and they see this outpouring of support for

the military, that they know it's genuine. because there is a great deal of patriotism by those who attend these games. we want to make sure that people recognize that it's done for the right reason. that's the reason to bring this forward, and again i want to thank the senior senator from arizona for his work on this and other efforts to fight wasteful spending and make sure that the funding that goes to our military and goes -- that we appropriate for the department of defense and authorize for the department of defense is used for military purposes. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the snr from arizona. mr. mccain: i withdraw my request with respect to amendment 1543. it is my understanding we'll call up this amendment after the votes this afternoon. the presiding officer: your request is withdrawn. mr. reed: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: madam president, i would like to comment briefly on

the amendment proposed by my colleague from north carolina, senator tillis, with respect to the stationing of c-130 aircraft at pope army airfield in north carolina. the amendment states that these aircraft shall be positioned in the pope army airfield. they are c-130 avionics modernized aircraft. basically what they are is c-130(h) models that were up-graded. in addition, the air force has c-130(j) models, the newest models. in thegy and take of the budget -- in the give-and-take of the budget deliberations this a.m.p. program was curtailed dramatically because the choice was buying new j models or

fixing the old h models. so, in effect, what we have is a group of c-0130 modified aircraft at little rock air force base. they're only being minimally maintained because these aircraft are not standard. they're different from the traditional hotel model and they're -- codel model and they're not as modern as the j model and they're not being supported with a&m logistics. they are at little rock air force because sort of caught up in this funding and programmatic dilemma. they are not fully deployable because of these conditions. they're just sort of an additive to the force structure of c-130

c-130(j). they are only three modified with five more to be modified. that would be an additional multimillion-dollar price tag. and, therefore, they are not functional as a unit, since there's only three aircraft and not a full complement. to operate these aircraft would require additional resources and the thrust of the gentleman's amendment is that these aircraft be transferred to pope army air force base in north carolina, but they would not really be effectively utilized by the forced there. -- by the forces there and would not in my view at least contribute to the training and the real-time operations of both the 82nd airborne division, 18th airborne corps and the special operations forces that are there. so rather than doing that, what

we did in the underlying legislation at section 136 is to go through and quite clearly have a careful review of the quasi-of aircraft to -- adequacy of aircraft to support troops at fort bragg so that the air force is fully supportive of this very very important mission the 82nd is america's most ready army force and special forces operators are all across the globe constantly. and so my comments are that this amendment would not essentially help what i think is the underlying goal, which is to enshould you are that our airborne forces have the platform necessary. it would in fact restrict the flexibility of the air force in terms of using c-130 aircraft. it would practically have the effect of simply taking the

aircraft that, because of their modification and their nonstandardization are being parked at little rock and moving them without effect, i think on the operational capacity and capability of our forces. so, as a result, i believe our best approach is to stay with the language in the underlying bill at section 136 which to the credit of senator tillis, he was very adamant about including, which would -- you'll have a careful review of the operational capacity of the air force to support airborne operations. it would include the ability of commanders from the corps level 82nd special operation commanders to combat on whether the air force is doing this. after such a re-v.o.a. a review and

analysis, we could make better decisions about the adloa indication of air force aircraft -- the allocation of air force aircraft. ironically -- and again it strikes me that simply moving these aircraft, which is sort of one-of-a-kind aircraft to pope would not help the air born operations of our military forces and they would simply involve additional costs and they would not be part of the ability of our air force and our mobility command to support a wide range of missions. they would complicate rather than simplify our ability to respond. and so for that, when this vote, which is scheduled later today comes up for a vote, i will oppose it, and i'll do so because i believe in the underlying legislation through the work of senator tillis tuckly, weparticularly, we have a response

to the flexibility and operational capacity of our air force at fort bragg. with that, i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. vote: quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. nelson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president i ask consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: mr. president when a child predeceases the parent, it is a grievous occasion and we have been grieving for the president of the senate, the vice president of the united states for what he has been going through; his whole family. it is my belief that joe biden has known for some period of time the progression of the

cancer on his son beau and as a result he has continued to carry on his public duties while at the same time caring -- carrying this huge, huge burden. i would like to enter in the record the speech that joe biden made to the yale graduating class about two weeks ago at class day. mr. president, i'd like to enter that into the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: but it is noteworthy that he discussed very frankly the tragedy that he has had in his life all while

knowing this impending tragedy that was unfolding with his son beau. and the essence of the speech which was vintage biden, with a lot of the humor and the irish tales but the essence of the speech comes down to this as he's talking to the graduates. "build real relationships even with the people with whom you vehemently disagree. you will not only be happier you will be more successful." and he continues "the second thing i've noticed is that although you know no one is better than you every other

person is equal to you and deserves to be treated with dignity and respect." end of quote. that's the essence of how in a democracy we have to get along. it's known as the golden rule. joe biden said the golden rule without saying it with the golden rule. treat others as you want to be treated. put it in the old english: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. the vice president tells in that

speech about the time that as a young senator he came in and he heard senator jesse helms talking about an issue that biden was opposed to, and he felt like that it was violative of his basic concepts of treating other people -- in this case i think it was the question of disability. and as he walked in to see the majority leader probably in that same office -- in this case mike mansfield -- senator mansfield the leader, noticed that joe was visibly upset. and he said what's wrong and he told him about this encounter

with senator helms. and senator mansfield then went on to describe to senator biden that both senator helms and his wife don't -- he said, don't ever judge until you really know the person, because senator helms and his wife had run into a situation where they found a severely disabled child. and as a result, they adopted that child. as a result, senator biden and senator helms became the best of friends. and even though the politics was different, when they served as the leaders of the senate foreign relation committee -- sometimes helms as chairman,

sometimes biden as chairman -- they could disagree on the issues but they could get a lot done because they could work together because they built a relationship. mr. president, how different is that today where each of us are racing out of here on thursday afternoons and evenings to go back to our states and we hardly ever have time for each other. to understand the core of us as humans and what makes us, drives us as we are. if we knew that about each other, maybe we would find more common ground. what i have found is that every one of these senators is an

extraordinary person extremely accomplished well-motivated. they try -- we all to do the right thing. but then we let the politics and the ideology get in the way and it drives us apart. and as a result, is it any wonder that we have a dysfunctional senate that has difficulty getting along particularly when you take the arcane rules of the senate which were designed to slow down the process. when you don't have the relationship that can be built when the two leaders can't get along, when the senate cannot be run by unanimous consent, is it any wonder that it's

dysfunctional? and yet, we have the capacity just like senator biden and senator helms did to overcome significant differences and get things done. so mr. president this time of grieving that we all grieve for the biden family as i read his yale speech, i was reminded, there's a lot about what was expressed there in a grieving father that could not show his grief because it was still very private. there's a lot of wisdom there. and that's why i wanted to enter it into the record. mr. president, i'll yield the floor and i'll suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. mr. king: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. king: madam president i rise today to discuss two important issues. first, the export-import bank. there's a lot about this place that puzzles me, but one of the things in this year that's puzzled me the most is the movement to somehow defund or end the export-import baipg

baipg. i just don't get t this is an agency of the federal government that has been extraordinarily effective. it creates jobs in the u.s. it supports jobs. it supports american businesses. it supports small american businesses. and it returns money to the treasury. and it fills a market niche that the private sector has been unwilling or unable to fill. this isn't competition with the private sector. this isn't government doing something that the private sector should do. this is government filling a niche that's been identified for over 80 year, and it makes a difference. i have visited several small companies in maine -- i think there may be a dozen or so -- that benefit directly from this program. it's 2% of the financing of u.s. imports, and, madam president we are engaged in intense global competition for the export of goods and services.

and to unilaterally disarm by taking away one of the tools that our businesses use just doesn't make any sense. and i don't understand what the impetus is for this move to undermine this very valuable program that's important to our companies. now, i toured a little company in maine that resells computer and networking equipment all over the world particularly into third world countries that need this equipment desperately for various needs but particularly for coping with emergencies. it is a small business in maine has 35 employees owned by a woman, and i visited with her and she -- connie justice told me this story and i don't like to read, but i think this quote is so powerful from a real, live business owner in maine as to how important this program is. "ex-im's working capital loan

guarantee program helped us expand our export sales during a period of rapid growth when private banks were unwilling to lend us without a guarantee." and this is important to understand that one of the most important programs, the export-import bank sponsors is a guarantee of receiveables from foreign countries which american banks, quite logically because they don't have the history and can't clerktscan't collect are very reluctant to finance. "after two years of solid exports, our financial position strengthened so the ex-im bank was no longer needs. but our expansion and increased sales would have been impossible without ex-im bank's involvement. we continued to use the bank to ensure our receivables from customers in developing companies. -- developing countries." this isn't a handout this isn't

corporate welfare. they're paying premiums that make money over the past 20 years or so, have returned $7 billion to the u.s. treasury. this makes money. she pays her premiums and that is a positive for the united states taxpayers. "being able to offer open payment terms for u.s.-made goods opens previously inaccessible markets for us. our major manufacturers including h.p., dell, and lenovo have committed to making more systems domestically to comply with the made in u.s.a. requirement. this has a large multiplier in u.s. employment. this company has seans their export sales grown. their staff has grown from five to 35. their payroll has increased to almost $2 million a year and they use local suppliers for a broad range of services.

she goes on to conclude, "we've achieved this entirely through our export sales and the export-import bank has been a key partner in our success. "ytion would we want"why would we want to let this very valuable program expire for some theoretical reason that frankly i just find inexplicable? it makes money for the american taxpayers. it's a projected to continue to make money. and -- but my passion here is about its support for small businesses in maine who otherwise could not make these sales into the international market. as i meninged, allowing the -- as i mentioned allowing the export-import bank to expire is a kind of unilaterally disarmament. it makes no sense. 60 other countries have similar kinds of programs, and we take ours away, what we're doing is handcuffing our businesses while

the rest of the world is moving forward with their programs to support exports. madam president i used to start speeches in maine by saying simply 5%. and people would look at me and say what is he talking about 5%? five percent is the percentage of the world's population that lives in north america. if our businesses are going to ultimately by successful we have to sell into the rest of the world. we have to be able to export. and this, the export-import bank is a very valuable tool in order to facilitate the exports of goods from the united states. there's bipartisan support. i believe the votes are there in the house. senator mcconnell has committed to a vote here in the senate and i commend senator cantwell and senator graham for their work on behalf of this.

i just hope that we can bring this matter to a vote promptly. avoid the deadline of june 30. i don't know why we can't do things around here before the night before. and let's get this done and move on to more important topics. this is -- we shouldn't even be having this debate. this ought to be automatic as indeed it has been for some 80 years. i hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this program. we should not be playing games with this important agency at a time of such intense global competition. now, madam president, i also want to rise to talk about the national defense authorization bill which is also coming to the floor today and is on the floor today.

65 years ago this week a freshman senator from maine rose on this floor in this place and made one of the most important speeches in american history and it certainly was one of the most important speeches of the 20th century. june 1 1950. that freshman senator was margaret chase smith of main. i got to know her after she left in the 1980's and 1990's in maine before we lost her in 1995. she told me about that speech. the speech was about the dangers to the country and particularly to this institution of the practices of joseph mccarthy of the smear campaigns, of the innuendo, of the threats. and her speech took enormous courage. she told me two stories about the speech that i think are interesting that i want to note before i go on to the implications of that speech for what we're can -- what we're

considering today. one was she said that as she had the speech in her hand and got on the little trolley to come from the russell building over here -- at that time the russell building was the only senate office building -- who should be sitting in the trolley in the seat next to her but joe mccarthy. senator smith sat down and mccarthy said what are you up to today margaret? she told me she responded i'm about to make a speech, joe and you're not going to like it. and she went on to the senate floor, and she had written that speech with her close aide bill lewis at her kitchen table in maine over memorial day weekend in 1950. she had the speech in her hand and bill lewis was in the press gallery right up here, but she told him not to hand out a copy of the speech until she was well into giving it on the senate floor because she was afraid that she would lose her nerve

and not deliver the speech. that speech took enormous courage. it took enormous courage because she was telling her colleagues an uncomfortable truth. an uncomfortable truth. and i believe that today it's also important that we face uncomfortable truths. i am a strong supporter of the national defense authorization act on the floor. i am a strong supporter of the need and the importance and how crucial that bill is to the defense and the security of this country. the most solemn responsibility we have in this place is set forth in the preamble to the constitution itself: to provide for the common defense and ensure the domestic tranquillity that is what governments are established to do. that is the basic fundamental

responsibility: to provide for the common defense and ensure domestic tranquillity. that's national security, and that's what this bill that's on the floor today is all about. i worked in subcommittee on it. i've been to numerous repeated hearings as the presiding officer has all through the winter and early spring where we learned about the strategic challenges facing this country and i commend the chair of this committee for putting this in a strategic context and we talked about big issues with people like henry kissinger and bring disin i ask and madeline madeleine albright. we had lengthy subcommittee meetings and subcommittee markups. for me one of the most satisfying parts of my legislative hearing here has been the markup of this bill where we met as a committee where we argued and debated and voted and had a lot of amendments and tried to deal with it for two solid days and

came to a conclusion whereas i recall the vote out of the committee was something like 22-4. a very powerful vote. so i am in total support of this piece of legislation. however, my problem with the legislation is that it attempts to avoid the impact of the sequester through the use of the overseas contingency account money which is not paid for. we've had hearings. every hearing we've had this year has been talking about the danger of the sequester to national security. and indeed, i've been working with a number of of my colleagues to try to find the solution for the sequester but the solution for the sequester is not simply to borrow the money from our grandchildren. what bothers me about this legislation is that it's part of a pattern. when the chips are down around here we borrow the money from

our grandchildren. if five-year olds could vote and knew what we were doing to them, we'd all be dead ducks because we're passing the bill on to them. i think we should fully fund the department of defense and the request at the level that's in this bill. i just don't think we should borrow the money to do it. and make no mistake that's what we're doing. we're saying it's very important, these are important expenditures. it's critical for national defense that we make these expenditures but not critical enough to pay for them. and that's the pattern. earlier this year we passed the so-called tax extenders. they ought to be called tax cut extenders because that's what they are. and everybody said they were important to economic development and they were important for the country and important for certainty for businesses and all that was true but it wasn't enough to pay for them. we borrowed the money. last year we passed a major rewrite of the veterans administration program where

everybody talked about how important this was how important the veterans affairs agency was to our veterans, how much we owed our veterans, how we had to take care of this. but then we turned around and borrowed the money from our grandchildren in order to fund it. we didn't fund it. recently just in the last month or so we fixed the so-called doc fix which has been plaguing this place for a dozen years. but we didn't really fix it. we fixed it as far as the docs are concerned but we fixed if by borrowing the money. we didn't pay for it. many of my colleagues talk around here a lot about the deficit and the danger to the country. i think they're right. i think the deficit is a serious danger to this country. but it seems like the deficit is only a problem when we think it's a problem and then the next day itsz not a problem anymore because we're going to

borrow $38 million more to put into this bill. i think we need to stand up and pay for things. now i'm no angel. i voted for all those things that i listed, but i think it's time to start saying, wait a minute we can't do this. and, by the way by fixing the sequester in the department of defense, of course, we're not fixing it anywhere else in the federal government. and some people say well, that's okay because defense is important and we're not so worried about these other programs. i'm sorry but some of those other programs are little items like the f.b.i. there has never been a time in the history of this country where the f.b.i. is more important. we are facing serious dangerous, imminent threats. and to not fund the f.b.i. or the border patrol or the t.s.a., to have the sequester affect those agencies and kid ourselves that we're dealing with our

national security responsibilities is just not responsible. it's just not right. and to borrow the money to fix some of these things is not responsible or fair to our grandchildren. it's also -- we're saying we're not going to fix -- we're just going to fix with defense with this funny-money deal, a gimmick wrapped up in a trick but we're not going to fix anything else. i've talked about the f.b.i., the t.s.a., border patrol, national security issues, but what about the n.i.h.? what about scientific research that can save lives that we're having the sequester saying it's okay, we can do that. what about education? what about -- yes -- head start that gives young people a chance to make a serious contribution to this country? so i think the o.c.o. trick

that's in this bill is wrong on two counts. it's wrong on three counts actually. number one it's not paid for. number two it's not really what the defense department needs. they need base budget authority so they can plan, so they can look to the future so they can make the decisions on an ongoing basis that are necessary to commit to programs and plans and projects that will defend this country. the short-term o.c.o. solution doesn't do that. so that's number two. and number three by ignoring the needs of the rest of the federal government, by ignoring the needs of other parts of the national security apparatus we're not serving the public we were sent here to look after. so i support this bill, but i think that we really ought to be thinking about alternative ways to fund the needs that we've identified. it's too easy to say this is an

important national priority but not important enough to pay for. we are continually even today after all the talk about deficits and budget control and everything else, finding ways to shift the burden to our kids and to our grandchildren. i don't think that's right madam president. senator reed of rhode island has an amendment to this bill that i think is an important one. all it simply says is we're not going to spend that o.c.o. money in defense until we solve the problem more generally throughout the rest of the federal government. now, i realize it's not the responsibility of the defense department or of the armed services committee to solve the overall budget problem within the defense bill. but i think we have a responsibility to look at the larger problem and we can contribute to its solution by saying to our colleagues throughout this body and in the house that there has to be a

comprehensive solution before we say we're going to fix only defense and we're only going to fix defense with borrowed money. there are three ways to solve this budget problem madam president. three ways. one is by cuts. and there have already been substantial cuts from the projected budgets back in 2010 to something like three-quarters of $1 trillion has already been cut from defense and other areas of the federal budget. there have to be continue -- we have to continue to look at that and we have to look at all aspects of the federal budget. the second way is revenues. nobody is supposed to talk about revenues around here, but the reality is we're not paying our bills. and to pat ourselves on the back for tax cuts when in reality we're passing expenses on to our children is just not honest. when we pass tax cuts here in a deficit situation and just borrow the money to fill the

hole we're not cutting taxes. we're shifting the tax to our children. i don't think that's honest. i don't think that's responsible. i don't think that's what we were sent here to do. and the third way, of course, to solve this budget problem is by economic growth. and some people say well, the only way to grow the economy is to cut taxes. i've seen no economic study that says that that works. maybe it works if you're reducing the taxes as they did in 1960 from 90% top marginal rate to now about 35%. okay, i think that is significant. but to reduce that marginal rate by two or three points and say that's going to stimulate a huge amount of economic activity is just -- that's just not, there is no economic justification for that. the two single-biggest economic development projects in the recent history of the united states were the g.i. bill after world war ii and the interstate highway system. both of them were investments.

both of them cost money. and, by the way our predecessors paid for them. they didn't pass the bill on to us. they paid for them. so yes we need to control taxes. yes, we need to think about strategic tax reductions in ways and areas that will actually help stimulate the economy. i don't understand why having some guy that's managing money in new york, paying half the tax rate that his secretary makes is a stimulus to the economy. and yet that's what we're doing. we've got to be looking at this problem in a comprehensive way. we've got to look at health care costs. we've got to look at the effects of demographics on federal expenditures over the next 20 to 30 years. and we've got to look at investments that will help our economy to grow. so madam president you and i worked hard on this bill.

i think it's an important bill for the future of this country. i think it's an important bill to protect the national security to provide for the common defense but i think we need to do it in an honest and open way and not try to fill a short-term budget gap with money that our children and our grandchildren are going to have to repay. i believe that we can do this. i believe that we can face this responsibility because that is why we are here. thank you, madam chair. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: madam president someone has already asked that u.s. army major justin grakowski, who is a fellow in my senate office, be granted floor privileges for this debate. i want to express how pleased we

have been, how lucky we have been to have the major with us helping with these issues. he is a graduate of west point. he currently serves as an information operations officer. he served as an advisor to the iraq army during the surge in 2006 and 2007 and returned from afghanistan in january of last year where he had been responsible for psychological operations electronic warfare and military reception for kandahar province. he has been a great addition to our office during this debate, and in my view, this debate is the most important debate we have. the number one priority for the federal government is to defend the country. now, we can spend all the time we want to talking about all the other priorities and all the things we should be doing and whether there is some sudden mystical balance between all of those priorities and defending the country but in most of our states and certainly in the state of missouri, the one thing that you can get the least

argument on as to what the federal government should do that we can't do for ourselves is defend the country. that's why for 54 years straight the senate has passed this defense -- a defense authorizing bill every year. there are very few things that get authorized every year, very few things that get debated every year, very few things that get looked at every year, but our national defense is one of those, and it's one of those for a reason. you hear all kinds of reasons not to move forward with this bill and then you hear but i'm for the bill. well that's because people understand that this is one of the things that the federal government is supposed to do, and in my view the top thing we can't in any way do for ourselves. local government can't do this, state governments can't do this, individually we can't do this. that's why this debate is always so important why the committee voted this out the armed

services committee voted this out 22-4 after all kinds of suggestions that, well, maybe the minority would not vote for this for reasons we just heard but at the end of the day the vote's 22-4 out of the committee. chairman mccain and ranking member reed have done a good job of bringing this bill to the floor, bringing this bill with bipartisan support and looking for ways to reform defense so that we really focus our defense where the defenders are rather than where the defenders aren't. this bill is focused on eliminating wasteful spending. it focuses on finding ways to reduce bureaucracy and streamlining the critical military functions we have that puts a focus on the fighting forces not the bureaucratic forces in the defense structure. the bill identifies $10 billion in excessive and unnecessary spending and re-allocates those

funds to our true military capabilities. it also modernizes the military retirement system so that many more who serve have a retirement benefit from serving. the current retirement system benefits less than 20% of those who serve in the armed forces because the people that are benefited are people who serve 20 years and retire at that point. this bill would create a system where service members and taxpayers join together to create a retirement benefit that the estimate is that 75% of people who serve in uniform who serve in the military would leave with a retirement benefit rather than only 17% 18% 20% of people leaving the military. it's a reform that really honors all those who serve in a good way and doesn't penalize any who serve. it still allows people who have been serving under the old

system to stay under the old system and obviously the longer you stay in that system, the better you're going to do, but the options now are basically no retirement benefit or a retirement benefit that comes with substantial service and only with that kind of service. this bill creates retention bonuses to keep people in the military longer than 20 years. we have men and women retiring at the height of their capacity with technical skills and not easily replaced. this bill recognizes that and recognizes looking for ways to encourage them to continue to serve. our state the state of missouri has a real commitment to the military more than 17,000 active duty service members serve from missouri. we have important bases in our state. we have 8,000 civilian department of defense employees and more than 20,000 members of the reserve and the national

guard. this bill authorizes funding to build a consolidated stealth operations and nuclear alert facility at whiteman air force base. it preserves and prevents the retirement of the a-10 plane that has wide support in the congress but more importantly the a-10 has wide support from the ground forces that it supports from the air. when you talk to people who serve on the ground, general owed narrow and -- general ordineiro and others say there is no plane that will do what this plane does. those who fly it and support it are important to that. whiteman air force base has the a-10 fighter wing that just got back from being deployed. this bill also authorizes upgrades in our cargo aircraft, the c-130 aircraft that will help the main force as well as the national guard and reserves.

in fact, rosechanz air base national guard at st. joseph is a great training facility for our forces but also a training facility that at least 19 of our -- of our allies came to last year to train to figure out how to get supplies, how to get troops how to move things with those cargo planes in ways that they otherwise would not be able to do. this bill also takes an important step in moving forward with the new bomber. there is money here that would continue to fund the new plan for the idea out there for a long-range bomber. we have to have that. we have to have precision bombing capability that is better than anybody else's, and the planes we're using now have been the best planes in the world for a long time, but they won't be the best planes in the world forever and it's time to

begin to move forward as we have been toward that new plane. those are all important. they are key initiatives here promoting accountability, promoting the standards that we need to have for performance in the military and how we reward those standards. this bill maintains critical quality of life programs for men and women that serve and their families. this bill addresses needs of our wounded, of our ill of our injured service members and it continues to provide critical assistance to our allies, particularly our ally israel where we have significant common research and common effort. as we've all seen in recent years, the david sling and the iron dome weapons systems are critical not only for israel's security but they have been critical proving grounds for the kind of response that was once looked at as some kind of

unachievable star wars capacity that both david sling and the iron dome have proved that that capacity is in fact truly achievable and we continue to move forward with that kind of defense system in this bill. this also goes a long way toward combating the threats of cyberspace and cybersecurity by evaluating what those vulnerabilities are and dealing with those vucts. i want to mention a few amendments that i intend to offer before we move on with this bill bill i filed that i think strengthen the bill. first i believe the military's mental health screening process can be improved. we've learned a lot about mental health and behavioral health over the past 15 years. i believe we can continue to adapt and frankly last year's defense authorization bill had important steps in this direction that i was able to get in the bill when i was a member

of the committee last year, not just the appropriating committee, the defense appropriating committee that i serve on now but the defense authorizing committee that i served on then. the amendments i will offer will improve the predeployment health assessment and post deployment health reassessment by requiring that all service members be screened that they don't have to meet some criteria that every member of the service may not meet. it's important while premium are serving to establish the things that have happened to them so later if they need to come back and ask -- years later perhaps for assistance in what truly was a -- a post event that was caused by their service but didn't show up for a number of years. having the incidents and things that might have affected their mental health is important. the national institutes of health says one in four adult

americans has a diagnoseable and almost always treatable behavioral health issue. i have asked the secretary -- the surgeon generals of the armed forces if that number applies to the armed forces, and without recitation, they say c.e.o. they say we recruit from the general population. there's no reason that that number -- that number wouldn't apply to people serving us uniform, and the key there is diagnoseable and treatable. diagnoseable and treatable in a way that people aren't held back by their behavioral health issues any more than they are held back by their physical health issues. they just need to be dealt with. and so hopefully we're going to look at mild tram particular stress injury -- traumatic stress injury potential post trauma sick stress injury potential, looking at somebody as they move forward in the

service. what happens in the service and what happens in the years after really matters. those amendments on mental health meet i think the evolving needs of service members and hopefully the evolving needs of how we understand behavioral health as it relates to all other health. i have another amendment madam president, that would not allow the army to go below the currently authorized end strength level of 475 soldiers, 475,000 soldiers. threats around the world increases to our national security. we heard general ordierno testify before the committee about the risks associated with going below 490,000 soldiers. this amendment would say you can't go below the 475,000 soldiers until the secretary of defense tells the congress how he plans to reduce excess headquarters elements and excess

administrative overhead. just this morning i read an article from military.com discussing navy secretary ray mabus's comments about excessive bloat, his term, at the d.o.d. headquarters function. the article says the secretary says pentagon and congressional budget cutters should look at eliminating extra bureaucracy before slashing funds for sailors and ships. mabus said 20% of the pentagon budget is spent on what he called -- quote -- again pure overhead unquote. items not directly linked to readiness or items not directly linked to ongoing operations, mabus referred to this overhead as the fourth estate, specifying entities such as the office of the secretary of defense the defense agencies and organizations fund by the undersecretaries of defense.

here's another direct quote from secretary mabus -- there are other places to look rather than taking tools from the war fighter. to the extent we can protect the stuff that actually gets to the war fighter. end his quote. i think my amendment would ensure that the secretary of defense has to take that quote to heart. the presiding officer: the senate has an order for a vote at this hour. mr. blunt: i ask for an additional one minute. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. blunt: without objection and i want to make one other comment, one other amendment that i have that i will talk more about later in this debate is the concern i have for iran's growing influence in iraq and the failure that we have had in maintaining the commitment we made to those camp liberty residents that in -- that we promised to protect more than 100 residents have been killed at camp liberty.

and i recognize the state department's ongoing efforts but they're not good enough and i believe the secretary of defense needs to certify to the committees that they are taking appropriate steps to ensure the safety and security of iranian dissidents housed at camp liberty in iraq. with that i'll let the senate move to the vote. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: i ask unanimous consent to speak for two minutes on the pending amendment number 1494 we're about to vote on. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mrs. shaheen: the supreme court has ruled it is unconstitutional to deny federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples and their children yet due to unrelated provisions of the federal code, state legislatures from the ability to indirectly deny federal benefits to certain disabled veterans and their families solely because they are in a same-sex marriage.

this is unjust and according to the supreme court, it is unconstitutional. this amendment that we are about to vote on would end the current prohibition on benefits for gay and lesbian veterans and their families living in states that do not recognize same-sex marriage. i want to just quote from testimony that we heard from the v.f.w. at a senate veterans' affairs committee hearing last month. the v.f.w. said this, and i hope that all of my colleagues will keep this in mind as we vote. quote -- "simply put if a veteran is legally american dream in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage, we, the v.f.w. believe the v.a. should provide benefits to his or her spouse or surviving spouse the same way it does for every other legally married veteran. many of us talk all the time about the need to honor the service of our veterans, to make sure they have access to the care they deserve.

this amendment will right a wrong that too many of our veterans who have fought and volunteered deserve to have. so madam president, i hope that our colleagues will support this amendment and we can ensure that those veterans are treated equally. the presiding officer: under the previous order the question now occurs on amendment number number -- 1494 offered by the senator from new hampshire mrs. shaheen. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or to change their vote? if not on this vote the yeas are 53, the nays are 42. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. under the previous order the question now occurs on amendment number 1506 offered by the senator from north carolina, mr. tillis. mr. tillis: thank you mr. president. this amendment is simple and it supports the c-130 avionic modernization program. that the air-land subcommittee validated yesterday by accepting the chairman's $75 million mark and the manchin amendment.

the secretary of the air force should be avionics modernization program in direct support of the daily training and contingency requirements of the army airborne and specifics operations unit. and this occurs in more than one base. this is not just about north carolina. a senator: order in the chamber, please. there tillis: the secretary shall provide personnel to operate and maintain the aircraft. there are 210 c-130's left. it will hopefully replace about 30 of the j models that will leave us about 130 c-130-h's in the fleet. the air force has spent $2.3 billion on the c-130-4 program. at the time that they canceled it, it was on schedule and at

cost. the joint requirements council validated and the program had begun the initial reduction process. we have 30 at little rock which will be flown to the bone yard instead of being put to the use that i'm suggesting in this amendment. i would appreciate your support. and also would like to say thanks to matt donovan and steven barney for their patience in getting this amendment done and also colonel anthony lozarski and senator inhofe himself. thank you. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: mr. president very quickly the senator from north carolina worked very hard to get legislative language in the bill which has a study of the sufficiency of the airlift requirements for the unit

stationed at fort bragg, north carolina. this would take several aircraft at little rock, move them to north carolina. it would not effectively help the mobility of our forces, it would micromanage the use of military aircraft and as such i ask there be a nay vote and with that i ask the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? hearing none, the tillis amendment number 1506, 50 in favor, 42 opposed the amendment is agreed to. the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: are you sure, you betcha. the presiding officer: there will be order in the chamber. mr. mccain: the ranking member and i have a small package of amendments that have been cleared by both sides. i would ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up, reportedly number, and agreed to en bloc. 1618 should hurricane shaheen 1639, 1513, 1571 ^ 1484 hoeven, 1511, heller. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection.

mr. mccain: i ask -- the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendments en bloc, by number. the clerk: the senator from arizona proposes amendments en bloc numbered 1618, 1539, 1551, 1571 1484, and 1511. the presiding officer: under the previous order the amendments are agreed to en bloc. mr. mccain: mr. president on behalf of senator paul, i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment in order to call up amendment 1543. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator arizona, mr. mccain, for mr. paul proposes an aimed in my judgment 15143 to amendment 1563. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the senator rhode island. mr. reed: i ask unanimous consent at that time pending amendments be set aside and

behalf of senator blumenthal, i call up amendment number 15634. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from rhode island, mr. reed, for mr. blumenthal ppropriate aimed awmed 1564. mr. reed: i ask that further reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: mr. president, i would also vuct that this amendment be considered as if it was offered before senator paul's amendment to maintain an alter nation between -- anality nation between democratic and republican amendments. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. reed: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that the pending a.m.s be set aside on behalf of senator durbin, i call up amendment 1559. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report the amendment.

the clerk: mr. reed for mr. durbin proposes amendment numbered 1559. mr. reed: i would ask for disposing of the reading of the amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: -- [inaudible] the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. a senator: mr. president? i'm sorry. the presiding officer: i would ask the senator to withhold. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call.

mr. mccain: i ask proceedings under the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: i'd ask senators waiting to speak which i will ask to be in morning business in about two or three minutes while we finish seeing if the modification that may be at the desk is approved or not. i ask their patience for two or three minutes here until we get this done. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. 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 arizona. mr. mccain: i ask further proceedings under the quorum

call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: i ask consent that the paul amendment 1543 be proifd with the changes -- be modified with the changes at the desk. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to a period of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mrs. mccaskill: are we in a quorum --

mr. cassidy: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are not. mr. cassidy: i rise to share my concerns about the rule issued by the e.p.a. and the army corps of engineers. the clean water act clearly states it is the policy of congress to recognize preserve and protects the primary responsibilities and rights of states to prevent reduce, and eliminate pollution. despite this partnership and the limits to federal authority the president and his administration along with some lawmakers have sought in recent years to clarify and extend the scope of federal jurisdiction under the clean water act in a manner that would expand the federal government's ability to regulate waters of the united states. in short a federal power grab. changing the scope of the law including the clean water act is solely the responsibility of congress. yet the president's administration has again elected to bypass the legislative process bill finalizing this rule. when i'm in louisiana i

consistently hear from my constituents about the impacts this rule could have on private property private property development, timberland, farmland and other water bodies that would be subject to federal control. they tell me this rule will create more uncertainty. in fact, infrastructure projects and jobs, despite the e.p.a. and corps' assurances to the contrary. louisiana is experiencing significant economic growth, growth that is bringing jobs to those americans who have had the hardest time finding jobs with this recent poorly performing economy. this progress will be negatively affected as a result of this rule. in addition to the increased cost and regulations the rule invites costly litigation and can significantly restrict the ability of landowners to make decisions about their property and to make it harder for state and local governments to plan for their own development. let me just note that this is not the only rule e.p.a. has

been working on that will negatively impact the economy and the job growth in my state. the proposed rule to lower the standard for ground level ozone will hurt job development in louisiana, carrying with it health impacts to workers and families that are not fully considered by the e.p.a. it has clearly established that the higher the standard of living, the healthier the family; these rules will lower the standard of living for those who lose their jobs. in calcasieu parish, various manufacturing projects underway are in the process of being improved. it will require construction workers creating jobs our economy needs more of. it can be severely impacted as a consequence of this rule. this graphic displays the navigable waters prior to the rule the release of the rule this past week in the parish. now you'll see the bodies that

will fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government under the finalized rule. put the first chart back up, please. again, here is under current law. and that is what it will be. this will impact the ability of state -- excuse me -- of local government to plan their development. now, instead of people in louisiana deciding how best to use their property, the federal government will be able to dictate many land-use decisions which have always been local. again, this rule is a major takeover effort by the e.p.a. and army corps of engineers. the administration has stated that this rule is narrowly defined. however, under the new definitions for tributaries adjacent waters and waters that are neighboring a traditional navigable water virtually any water body could fall under the agency's regulatory authority. and if certain bodies of water don't fit these definitions the agencies can make a case-by-case determination of significant

nexus. assistant secretary joellen darcy from the army corps said last week this rule is a huge win for the public health and the economy and reflects that clean water matters to the american people. first, let me point back to this map that community leaders in calcasieu parish provided for me highlighting that this is not a win for our economy but could significantly impact economic and private land development moving forward. secondly as a physician -- i am a doctor -- i understand the importance of human health and understand the impacts that human health as a consequence of consequence of overregulation by the federal government. if people are poor, their health suffers. there is a strong statistical relationship. when jobs are lost overseas because of regulatory -- regulations and regulatory uncertainty, jobs are lost overseas. again, i believe this revised rule is a power grab by the administration not based upon a congressional action. we took a vote on this issue

back in march during the budget debate to limit the expansion of federal jurisdiction under the clean water act which i supported. last fall, we took a similar vote while i was in the house of representatives to repeal this harmful regulation. and my colleague from wyoming senator john barrasso, has a bill the federal water quality protection act. it's a good bill that provides clarity for how the e.p.a. should and should not define waters of the united states. i know the chairman of the environment and public works committee, the senator from oklahoma senator inhofe, intends to move this bill through his committee soon, and i'd like to offer my support for that legislation. again, mr. president we've seen time and again that this administration will attempt to overreach the limits of what the executive branch should do, and when it comes to the e.p.a.'s overreach, the waters of the united states isn't the exception, it is the norm. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor.

mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you very much mr. president. i'd like to speak about the bill that is before us and reauthorizing funding priorities for the d.o.d., and i first want to congratulate the chairman, chairman mccain and ranking member jack reed for working together on a very important bill. there are a lot of important issues a lot of important priorities in this legislation for our home state in michigan. the fact that we are supporting the a-10's so our troops have the close air support they need is very important.

it's important that we are continuing to invest in research and development new kinds of technologies. we're very proud in michigan to be the ones that are on the front lines providing research and development for the army, if the army drives it, we design it fix it, build it at warren, michigan surrounding area in macomb county that we call the defense corridor, and we're very proud about that. we have vital military equipment manufactured here in the united states and in michigan specifically that is supported in this legislation and it provides a very important pay increase and support for our troops that is absolutely critical. my concern is that is not with the contents of what we are doing in this particular bill in terms of supporting the defense of our country supporting our

troops it's the fact that we have budget gimmicks being used to fund the department of defense. our troops deserve more than budget gimmicks. those on the front lines deserve more than basically funding essential services or pay raises or essential equipment through funds that we know are sort of made-up funds another name for deficit spending which has been done over the years as we went to war in iraq and afghanistan where there was a fund set up, the overseas contingency account. not really any money in it, but it was a way to mask the fact that we were not funding wars and that we in fact were using deficit spending to do it. so to continue that with the critical items in this bill is a mistake and frankly not worthy of the men and women who are on

the front lines putting their lives, putting themselves in harm's way every single day. and so it is critical that we do better in terms of this budget and the structure of this budget. our families also deserve better because we need to fully fund the full defense of our country both here at home and overseas, without budget gimmicks, without adding to the deficit. all those things that create a strong country and security for our families needs to be done in a way that does not include budget gimmicks, and that frankly is not what is being proposed. that's why i am very proud to be a cosponsor of senator reed's amendment which would cap this spending on what has been called this overseas contingency account. others of us at various points have called it the fake money

account, there's no money in it. it's a fancy way of covering up the fact that we are spending and adding to the deficit and senator reed would basically indicate that that would be capped we would not -- we would try to begin to rein that in, cap that amount, and we also would say very clearly that we would address the issues that affect the united states in terms of our strength, the defense broadly of our country whether it's in the department of defense or whether it's in other parts of our overall budget as a nation by basically lifting -- and for those watching we talk about the budget control act but there are caps lifting those in a way so that we can fully fund both the department of defense but also the other things that need to be done to create security and to fully make sure our

families are safe, our economy is safe and that we are aggressively moving forward as an economy and that's what senator reed's amendment would do. it brings some balance it begins to rein in what is a policy that does not make sense in terms of using budget gimmicks and as i said before our troops certainly deserve better than that, and our families deserve better than that. using gimmicks is a convenient way to avoid dealing with what the real promise is. there is this thing called sequestration. people go what in the world is that but we put in the policy a number of years ago to limit spending and in fact the good news is that we have brought the annual budget deficit down by two-thirds. this is good news for our country, two-thirds of the annual deficit gone, but now as

we go forward and look at what's going to grow the economy and what's going to keep us safe, we look at the threats around the world that are coming at us, not just through the department of defense but through every area of the budget. when we look at what we need in terms of jobs and the economy and so on, we know that we need to revisit that policy and stop the gimmicks. don't use gimmicks going forward to pretend like we're still meeting sequestration but to honestly look at the needs of our country today and move forward. because frankly on the security front alone security is more than just what happens at the department of defense as important as that is. it's all of the programs that we rely on day in and day out to keep our country safe. certainly we hear about border security mr. president all the time. that's not predominantly funded in the department of defense. we look at cybersecurity one of

the number one issues that we have. we're hearing now both from a consumer standpoint, from a security threat terrorist standpoint, from a business security standpoint. cybersecurity, absolutely critical. and it is not given the same priority and importance as department of defense is, as we look at our overall defense of our country. counterterrorism certainly the people on the front lines police and fire. who answers the call, no matter what it is? in boston, a terrorist attack, who was on the front lines there? it was local police, local fire who are under the broad budget parameters that are being discussed now by the majority, republican majority would provide less funding less funding for the frontline defense in our neighborhoods in our communities. stopping our weapons of mass

destruction airport security, something we all know as we get on airplanes all the time every week. ebay protection. we look at the center for disease control and all of the issues that relate to diseases, whether it's threats at home or whether it's those that can be used in some way as a terrorist attack. many of the federal agencies fighting terrorism at home and protecting us from deadly diseases like ebay will not receive critical funding. under the budget framework that has been proposed. now, there is a willingness to use budget gimmicks in department of defense. again, our troops are certainly worthy of much more than budget gimmicks but when we look at more broadly in the whole budget we don't even see why it

has to use budget gimmicks on these other things. i don't think we should be using budget gimmicks, but the point is there is not an acknowledgment that there is more to defense and safety for our country than just in one department. to be strong abroad, we need to be strong at home as well and in so many other areas as we know. if we want to talk about competing around the globe if we want to talk about what we need to be doing to be secure, have a robust economy outcompeting the competition we have to also talk about educating our young people, which, by the way is cut in the overall scheme of things in this budget. we have to talk about lowering the cost of college. if there is one thing that we're hearing over and over again from

young people or those going back to job training programs who have lost their job in the economy, going back to get new skills to get a new job is the huge debts that they are incurring to do the right thing. people coming out of college who are now in a situation where they can't qualify to even buy that first home. realtors tell me do something about college loan debt. we can't help young people coming out of college buy a house. they won't qualify because of the amount of debt. the amount of debt they have will equal a house. that's a security issue for us. education, the ability to have a college education job training, investing in cures for diseases. how exciting it is for us to hear about all the opportunities now through the national institutes of health. you know, we have so many

promising opportunities on treatments and cures on alzheimer's, which by the way takes one out of every five medicare dollars. but in other areas of cancers and parkinson's disease and mental health disorders that's part of our strength and being secure and strong and robust for the future, and of course if we're going to be strong, we have got to fix our roads fix our roads and bridges. and we don't have dollars in this budget. in fact, the whole highway trust fund is going to run out in less than 60 days now if no action is taken by the majority, if there is no sense of urgency from our republican colleagues. so when we look at overall securing those things at home and abroad, whether it's making

sure beyond department of security -- department of defense, that we are funding our border security, cybersecurity counterterrorism police and fire stopping w.m.d.'s, airport security ebay protections or it's investing in our own people in all of this to create the opportunity for strong businesses and entrepreneurs and educated work force or infrastructure making sure that we have those airports and we have those roads. safety real security, growing the economy of our country. our people deserve better than budget gimmicks that are in this bill. i would yield the floor. thank you. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana.

mr. daines: it's been five years since americans were forced into a broken and unhappy relationship with obamacare. and ever since the implementation of this failed law, americans have received one broken promise after another. and for many montana families, reflecting on the consequences of this law is not a happy trip down memory lane. too many montanans have seen their work hours cut. they have been forced off the plans they liked and they were told they couldn't see the doctors that they trusted. the reviews have been in for quite some time, and obamacare isn't anything close to what montanans were promised. five years later insurance companies are still unable to find stable rates that don't force more uncertainty and hardship upon montanaians. it's been widely reported across the country that rates for millions of americans are set to

skyrocket again and look no further than montana. what is evident that health care premiums aren't as affordable as president obama promised they would be. policies sold through obamacare exchanges are becoming even more expensive. in fact, in montana according to filings with the montana commissioner of securities and insurance, insurers across the board are asking for double-digit increases for 2016 policies on top of more increases that occurred just last year blue cross/blue shield which is montana's largest insurer that boasts 250,000 consumers in the state is asking for an average increase of 23% for montanans enrolled in individual plans. that's just the start. pacific source filed papers with the commissioner requesting an

average 31% increase for individual plans. and what about montana health co-op? they have requested a 38% increase for individual plans. and montanans who were insured under time insurance are facing a staggering 47% increase in 2016. increased premiums make it harder for montanans to have access to affordable health care. it's money that no longer is in the pocket of montanans and those rate increases aren't just in montana. across the nation americans are seeing massive and debilitating rate increases. these hikes are a far cry from what montanans -- from the american people were promised. in 2007 president obama said himself that by the end of his first term, obamacare would --

and i quote -- "cover every american and cut the cost of a typical family's premium up to $2,500 a year." mr. president, montanans haven't seen their premiums decrease by $2,500 a year. it's not even close. unfortunately, this is the predictable resort and result of forcing a partisan piece of legislation through congress without transparent consideration or bipartisan input. we need to ensure health care is affordable and it needs to be accessible for all montanans and that starts with repealing obamacare, repealing its costly mandates repealing its burdensome taxes and repealing the senseless regulations. obamacare is not working and it isn't popular. this law is a bureaucratic nightmare that hurts small businesses. i just came out of a meeting

with some home builders, small business owners from montana. i showed them this chart before i came down to the floor. and one of the builders said this likely means that i no longer will be able to provide health care insurance for my employees. you know, growing up in montana i grew up hunting camping backpacking, fishing, in fact i was fly fishing in montana before brad pitt made it cool in that movie "a river runs through it." and i know when your fishing line gets tangled up, you've got two options. i've been there many times on one of the banks of montana's rivers. because sometimes you take a minute sometimes you take several minutes and you work to untangle the line. but other times the line gets so badly knotted up that the best option instead of spending a long time untangling the line is to simply cut the line.

after five failed years, the american people know that obamacare is too badly tangled to fix. it's time to cut the line and tie on a new fly. thank you and i yield back. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk should all the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. donnelly: could we end the quorum call? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. donnelly: thank you. i want to begin my comments on this year's national defense authorization act by thanking

all the members of the strategic forces subcommittee. i would especially like to thank the subcommittee's chairman, senator sessions, for the close working relationship we share. i want my colleagues to know that senator sessions and his staff worked closely with me and my staff in developing the elements of the bill pertaining to the strategic forces subcommittee. this bipartisan effort has proved fruitful, as all of our provisions were apartisan dod unanimously by the full committee during the markup of this bill. the annual national defense authorization act is one of the most important pieces of legislation congress passes every year, and this year will mark what i hope will be the passing of a defense authorization act for the 54th year in a row. mr. president, i would like to give my colleagues a brief overview of the provisions in

what we'll call the ndaa we are considering today as they relate to the strategic forces subcommittee. the jurisdiction of the subcommittee includes missile defense, strategic forces, space programs the defense-funded portions of the department of energy nonproliferation, and the defense nuclear facilities safety board. in preparing the provisions in the bill that relate to the areas of our jurisdiction the subcommittee held six hearings and three briefings on defense programs at the department of energy strategic nuclear forces missile defense and space programs at the department of defense. as i meninged before, our committee oversees -- as i mentioned before, our committee oversees the strategic forces

based on land, air and sea-based delivery platforms. this is the bedrock of our national defense posture. in the wake of department of defense's 2014 nuclear enterprise review, this is a significant year for reforms and investments to ensure the safety security, and the effectiveness of our nuclear deterrent. among key priorities going forward, i look forward to working with our leaders at the department of energy, at d.o.d., and my colleagues on the committee to take advantage of smart opportunities to enhance commonality across nuclear systems, sharing expertise and resources across the services, particularly the navy and air force to enhance the capabilities and

cost-effectiveness of our nuclear deterrent in the future. critically the bill creates a position in the air force responsible for nuclear command control, and communications acquisition and policy. the air force is responsible for over 70% of this mission which essentially connects the president to the nuclear weapon and the delivery platform. we have found that since the communications layers involve space, air and ground systems there is fragmentation in an overall strategy as we begin the modernization of the overall system. which must be fail-safe. through hearings and briefings concerning the state of other nations' nuclear programs, it was clear that we face an

increasingly complex global nuclear environment. we are well past the days of the cold war. today our deterrent strategy must now account for a wide range of nuclear-armed nations beyond simply russia, now including pakistan, india north -- north korea and even china's modernization of its strategic arsenal. our bill contains a provision that directs the office of net assessment to begin a study on what effect, if any this multipolar nuclear environment will have on our deterrent strategy. this is aen an important area that will only grow as time goes on. in the area of missile dweps this bill fully authorizes the president's budget and his request for the missile defense agency and maintains our commitments to key allies. it includes several provisions

that advance m.d.a.'s efforts to deploy additional sensors and to improve the reliability and effectiveness of the ground-based interceptors. the bill also contains the g.a.o.'s annual review of m.d.a.'s acquisition programs. moving on to space programs, the bill addresses several key aspects of space system acquisition. it includes important provisions aimed at maintaining fair competition among space launch providers through fiscal year 2017. it does not however solve a potential two- to three-year gap after that, as launch providers work to develop and certify a new american-made rocket engine to replace the russian rd-180. i hope that gap does not occur but if it does, i am sure this

committee will revisit and correct the issue so we can maintain a competitive and healthy launch industrial base that both ensures d.o.d.'s access to space and saves taxpayer dollars. the bill also makes important contributions to ensuring that we address the threats we may face in space by requiring an interagency policy and a principle d.o.d. position to address these threats. we have authorized the president's requested level of funding for the nuclear modernization programs at the department of energy's national nuclear security administration, or nnsa. we also create a program that enables the scientists and engineers at the nnsa to work on new concepts and methods that shorten the time and the cost for future life extensions of our warheads.

let me close noting that we fully fund the president's request for nonproliferation at both the national nuclear security administration and the department of defense. at the nnsa, these programs collect loose nuclear material around the world which could be used as terrorist devices against us. the nnsa also maintains a network of radiation detecters at borders across the world to detect the illegal transfer of nuclear material before it can cross our borders here in america. finally, a cooperative threat reduction program at the department of defense will continue to secure weapons of mass destruction all around the world, as it did with syria's chemical weapons and dangerous

pathdangerouspassagedangerouspathdangerouspathogens. this has made a noticeable difference in reducing threats to our country. i take particular pride in this program, since the enduring legacy of my fellow hoosier senator richard lugar who has done our nation and the world a great service as a champion for nuclear nonproliferation. he and senator sam nunn were extraordinary leaders and we are proud to try to follow in their tradition. let me again thank senator sessions for the productive and bipartisan relationship we have had on this subcommittee and also all mels on members on the subcommittee for taking part in our hearings and in crafting the provisions under this

subcommittee's jurisdiction. i look forward to working with our colleagues to pass this important legislation. mr. president, i yield back any remaining time that has been allottedallotted. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: i ask unanimous consent to vacate the quorum call mr. president, and speak in morning business for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection, the quorum call is vacated. mr. wyden: i ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: thank you very much, mr. president. we have had a number of our colleagues come to the floor to talk about the importance of the export-import bank, and i want to see if i can put in context the exceptionally important work done by our colleague senator cantwell and senator heitkamp on this issue. we have been talking in this body for weeks now about the importance of trade and particularly capping global markets, given the fact that there are going to be a billion middle-class people in the developing world in 2025.

this is an exceptional opportunity, mr. president for us to be able to sell the products we make here, whether they be computers or wine or helicopters or planes, you name it. and we had a big debate about trade promotion authority. what i want to spend just a few minutes talking about today is whether or not a senator was for trade promotion authority or not, they ought to support the export-import bank because the export-import bank provides key financing tools key financing tools to promote products that are made in my home state, in the states of our colleagues and all across the land. it has supported tens of thousands of american jobs, even hundreds of thousands for decades. it doesn't cost american

taxpayers a single dime. in fact, the export-import bank covers its own costs and then some. it actually generates revenue for taxpayers. $7 billion over the last two decades and $675 million in fiscal year 2014 alone. so what i would submit, mr. president, is the export-import bank is awake and sure that in this country we get trade done right. i happen to believe that it makes sense to support the trade promotion authority because that is going to ensure that we're going to have a chance to drive down some of those tariffs that are barriers to american products. whether you're for it or not you ought to support the export-import bank because it provides key tools so that we can reduce barriers to our

exports, take on modern challenges that threaten american workers fight to create more high-wage jobs in the united states because it provides the financing that you need in order to actually secure one of these deals. the export-import bank is a core part of getting trade done right. countries including germany japan, mexico and canada all have agencies that are up and running and do it in a fashion that makes their exports more competitive. how are they doing it? they're using financing tools including supporting their manufacturers and pushing their products into the global marketplace. as senators cantwell and heitkamp have said, we need this tool to make sure our country doesn't fall behind. we shouldn't let the export-import bank become some kind of ideological pinata that you just keep bashing on and not

recognizing that it will hurt our competitiveness. i think it would just be malpractice, legislative malpractice. let the bank expire because it would needlessly endanger the thousands of businesses and tens of thousands of jobs supported by ex-im including many in my home state. and in particular, in oregon, you see that ex-im is a very substantial help to small and medium-sized companies. in fact, 86% of the funds disbursed in fiscal year 2014 went to small businesses. thanks to the export-import bank companies in albany can find markets abroad and hire new workers. they manufacture important things like titanium casting. sellnet is a perfect example a company that got its start in my home state more than 30 years ago. today it employs hundreds of people in oregon and across the

northwest and 40% of its revenue comes from overseas. they got off the ground with help from ex-im bank and it has customers in france, germany and asia and it looks to expand further. these kinds of success stories are ones you see in every single state because these start-ups got help when it was essential to have that added boost to be able to seize opportunities around the world and create high-skill high-wage jobs. to me, when we debate the future of the export-import bank, colleagues, this is going to be about red, white, and blue jobs and keeping the export-import bank up and running with the important financing tools it offers is part of getting trade done right. i commend our colleagues, senator cantwell, senator heitkamp senator murray, senator graham. they have come together in a bipartisan way to work to extend

the bank as quickly as possible, and they have my support. now, mr. president that's why i asked for an extra few minutes. i want to spend another few minutes just talking about another part of our economy that i think can grow in the days ahead, and i would ask unanimous consent, mr. president to bring a basket of oregon products onto the floor at this time. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. wyden: mr. president this week is national hemp history week and to help celebrate i thought i'd show a few oregon-made hemp products to highlight the many uses and opportunities for industrial hemp in my state and across the country. in the basket that i brought i've got food, soap, clothes and even deck sealant all made in oregon bought and sold in american stores and used by americans. oregon companies like bob's red

mill fiddle bumps and hemp shield contribute to our economy in unique ways. industrial hemp supports a $620 million industry in america, and our companies have found innovative ways of incorporating it into everyday products. however, the full growth potential of this industry is being cut down before it can fully bloom because a single ingredient that links all of these goods the hemp itself, cannot be grown in america. the unfortunate reality is that current federal rules prohibit our farmers from growing industrial hemp on american soil. this means that 100% of the hemp used in these products is imported from other nations. the federal ban on hemp amounts in my view, to a restriction on free enterprise, and it doesn't accomplish anything but stifle job creation and economic growth. we are the world's largest consumer of hemp products, but

we are the only major industrialized nation to ban hemp farming. this hasn't always been the case and it doesn't have to continue to be the case. it was once a booming crop in america, and it can and should be again. american farmers were growing this product as early as the 1600's before our nation was even founded. the declaration of independence, colleagues was written on paper made from hemp. in the 1800's and early 1900's, it was used to make rope, heating oil and textiles. during world war ii, we used it as part of the hemp for victory program to support our soldiers. but everything got changed when hemp got wrapped up with marijuana and federal regulations, and it's been banned ever since. are they related? maybe industrial hemp and marijuana are related species but one should not be confused with the other much like a

chihuahua and a st. bernard. mixing hemp in with a ban on growing marijuana is based on a lot of misconceptions. no matter where members of this body come down on medical or recreational marijuana industrial hemp and marijuana might be related plant species but there are big differences between them, like their chemical makeup. because they are not the same plant they shouldn't be treated with the same regulations and prohibitions. in my view keeping the ban on growing hemp makes about as much sense as instituting a ban on port abela mum-up mushrooms. no reason to outlaw a product because of what it is related to. that is why the majority leader, senator mcconnell and i came together with our colleagues from kentucky, rand paul jeff merkley we came together on a bipartisan basis to introduce the industrial hemp the farming act.

our bill would make sure hemp doesn't get lumped into the definition of marijuana in the controlled substances act. our bill is all about stopping the unfair punishment of entrepreneurs and farmers who want to be part of a growing ag industry here in america. companies in our nation that are importing hemp to use in food, cosmetics, soaps clothing and auto parts they ought to be buying that hemp from american farmers and contributing to our agricultural sector. i'll close mr. president by way of saying there are also big environmental benefits to industrial american people. it takes less water to grow hemp than cotton and requires fewer pest asides than other crops. i'll put it this way colleagues -- if you can buy it at your local supermarket -- and i got involved in this because i saw it at coscto when my wife was pregnant with our third child -- if you can buy

it at the local supermarket american farmers ought to be able to grow it. and i urge my colleagues to join me, the distinguished majority leader, senator mcconnell his colleague, rand paul, my colleague, senator merkley in our legislation to address this gap in american law and today join me in celebrating national hemp history week by learning more about this safe and versatile crop and the appropriation it holds to bolster american agriculture and the domestic economy. these products are products that are sold all across america and we ought to have a chance for our farmers farmers in nebraska farmers in nebraska and indiana, to be able to grow this product and reap the benefits of the private economy associated with it. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. cotton: on roll call vote 204 i voted yes. it was my intention to vote no. i ask unanimous consent i be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. cotton: i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: mr. president it's waste of the week time again and the waste of federal government spending keeps piling up. today i'm looking at the department of veterans' affairs. we all have a stake in this. i'm a veteran but even those of us who aren't veterans have a stake in making sure that our veterans are getting the use of taxpayers' dollars to -- for their benefits for the sacrifices they've made and those dollars are not wasted. over the past year we have been hearing on this floor and we continue to see story after story of mismanagement that is

plaguing the v.a. many are about our nation's heroes not receiving the care that they've earned and deserve. just last month i read yet another frightening headline, frustrating. veterans affairs improperly spent $6 billion annually, a senior v.a. official says. improperly spent $6 billion annually. according to an internal memo written by the v.a.'s senior official for procurement the v.a. has been wasting taxpayer money by violating federal contracting rules to pay for medical care and expenses. under law, v.a. purchases require competitive bidding and proper contracts but testimony from deputy assistant secretary for acquisition and logistics jan fry before congress last month reveals just the opposite is occurring. so the medical care and the

supplies that our veterans need for their medical needs are being compromised at a level of $6 billion a year. mr. fry wrote and i quote over the past five years some senior v.a. acquisition and finance officials have willfully violated the public trust while federal procurement and financial laws were debased. their overt actions and dereliction of duties combined have resulted in billions of taxpayers' dollars being spent without regard to federal laws and regulations making a mockery of federal statutes" -- end quote. an example of this violation is found with v.a. purchase cards. typically v.a. uses these cards for smaller purchases of up to $3,000 according to the rules and regulations and the laws.

but they were inappropriately used to buy billions of dollars' worth of medical supplies without contracts or oversight. mr. fry continued in a quote again, "in addition doors are flung wide open for fraud waste and abuse when contracts are not executed. for example, by law prices are paid for goods or service subject to contracts can only be determined to be fair and reasonable by duly appointed contracting officers. i can state he said, without reservation that v.a. has and continues to waste millions of dollars by paying excessive prices for goods and services due to breaches of federal procurement laws" -- end quote. according to reports the v.a. has failed to engage in a competitive bidding or signing contracts process ensuring a good deal for the services they are unable to provide in house

such as specialized tests and surgeries and other procedures. in fact, the v.a. has paid at least $5 billion in such fees in violation of federal rules. this is yet but another example of what the white house has recognized -- the white house has recognized -- as -- and i quote -- corrosive culture at the veterans administration. i think we all agree that our 8.7 million american veterans and our more than 130 million taxpayers deserve a lot better. given the large scale of purchases made by the v.a., proper procurement producers ensure the best product for veterans and the best value for taxpayers. aside from higher prices, the lack of contracts can result in a lack of oversight. the v.a. just like congress, is accountable, and must be

accountable for what it spends. now, i understand the incredible pressure the v.a. has been under with the recent influx of new veterans, and i appreciate the good work of many people who work at the v.a. still, no matter the growth and need -- growth in need, it is never in order to violate federal law. this kind of reckless spending cannot and must not be tolerated. each year congress sends billions of dollars to the v.a. to care for our veterans. and with those funds comes an obligation to use every dollar those funds properly. by simply requiring the v.a. to comply with federal law, we can save $6 billion. this is a simple fix with large results, and we should take it. so today i'm adding an additional $6 billion to our ever-increasing gauge of money that is wasted, of taxpayer money that comes to washington

and is spent for improper and unnecessary purposes. we are now two-thirds of the way to our goal of $100 billion. we're going to be doing this every week as long as the senate is in session this year. i hope we have to add an additional attachment to this gauge, because folks there's no end no end to discovering the kind of waste of taxpayers' money for unnecessary programs, violating the law violating regulations, mismanaging the spending here at the federal level, and we're going to continue to point out these issues week after week. and hopefully we can get the attention of our colleagues and the american people and they will demand that we do something about this, that while we cannot -- not have been able, thanks to -- no thanks, i think, to the administration, to come up with a sensible long-term fix to our deficit spending and continuing plunge

into debt, we can at least at the very least look at these programs that have been identified by the inspector generals the office of general accounting and the office of management and budget as wasting of taxpayer dollars. so there's enough we can doing until we get to the point we have administration that allows us to address the larger issue out-of-control spending and wasting money. tune in next week for the waste of the week, mr. president. and i thank my colleague from nebraska for generously yielding me the time. she was gracious enough to allow me the time. thank you. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. boozman: on roll call vote 204 i voted yes.

it was my intention to vote no. therefore, i ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to change my vote, since it will not affect the outcome. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. boozman: thank you mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: i rise to speak about the national defense authorization act or ndaa. the brave men and women who serve in our armed forces have protected our nation for generations. because of their selflessness we are able to enjoy then freedoms here at home. but it's important to remember that these liberties are not free. the sacrifices made by our service members are extraordinary, and we must ensure that they have the resources necessary and needed to defend the united states. that's why the ndaa has been passed each of the last 53

years. i was proud to continue this tradition by working with my colleagues on the senate armed services committee to pass the fiscal year 2016 ndaa only a few weeks ago. while this bill is not perfect it is the result of a bipartisan compromise to perform the most important function of the federal government, providing for the national defense. this bill's importance is widely known, but the details are not often given enough attention. for this reason, i'd like to take a moment to discuss some of the key provisions that play such a critical role in preserving the security of our nation and the effectiveness of our military. included in this bill are several commonsense proposals to cut inefficiencies and use the savings that are generated to better meet the needs of our war

fighters. for example the air force's next generation bomber and new tanker programs have both suffered delays, and they cannot spend the full amount requested when the budget was submitted in february. so this bill reduces funding for these programs accordingly and moves about $6,600,000,000 in savings to meet -- $660 million to in savings to meet the unfunded requirements of our military. unjustified increases were reduced, trouble programs were cut, and again the difference was used to meet high-priority requirements of our men and women in uniform. the bill also combats the continued growth in headquarter staff at the pentagon and major commands an issue that i discussed with secretary carter

at his confirmation hearing. two years ago the department announced its intention to reduce 20% of its headquarters staffs by 2019. however, it has yet to provide the armed services committee with a plan to accomplish these reductions. this legislation takes action, and it reduces funding for taurus and management staff -- headquarters and management staff by 7.5%. this goes beyond even the department's stated goal and it results in $1.7 billion in savings that are reprioritized to support more important needs.

requested by the department to address critical needs in our

nuclear forces identified in reviews last year. the bill reauthorizes key assistance and training programs and it also provides the secretary of defense new authority to partner with nations in the middle east, south pacific and eastern europe to support u.s. interests in these key regions. it also codifies the department of defense's role in defending the nation in cyberspace and it requires the department to regularly conduct training exercises with other governmental agencies to meet this responsibility. the importance of the last two issues i mentioned -- cybersecurity and security assistance programs -- was reinforced during a recent trip that i led to eastern europe. our allies there are deeply concerned by russia's military intervention in ukraine and their increasingly provocative behavior. they are all calling for more

cooperation with the united states in both of these key areas. these are just a few of the reasons why the ndaa is such an important piece of legislation. while i strongly support many of its provisions, it is important to repeat that this is the product of bipartisan compromise not consensus. one of the most hotly debated topics during the committee's markup process was the use of oversea contin yency operation funds to meet basic defense requirements. in a world where isil continues to expand its reach russia has seized crimea, and pours fighters into eastern ukraine and china is intimidating its neighbors and building islands in the south china sea we must fund our national defense. to do so, to not do so would be

unacceptable. we cannot hold our military hostage to a political controversy. despite disagreements the committee has again produced a compromise product. as it has year after year, a product that supports our national defense and the needs of our men and women in uniform. i am inspired by their service and i look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to protect our great nation, as the full senate considers the ndaa. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. cotton: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president i understand that we are now in a period of morning business and

-- the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. whitehouse: youcorrect.white house therefore,mr. whitehouse: white house therefore, it is not in order for me to call up an amendment to the defense bill. i will come back and get this amendment pending at the appropriate time on the floor. but i want to take a few minutes to spheek about it. it is amendment 1693 which responds to the very unfortunate citizens united decision, the january of 2015 has been that decision's fifth anniversary and it has had a pretty nefarious effect on our democracy. the premise of the decision was that unlimited corporate expenditures would not corrupt or exert improper influence in our american democratic process because there would be a regime of -- to et quo the decision --

"effective disclosure. ""that would provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters." close quote. well here we are. everybody in this room knows that there has been no effective disclosure whatsoever. we live in a world of dark money in which special interests spend tens and even hundreds of millions of dollars in elections to buy influence and try to make sure that people get their way and there's neither public knowledge nor accountability about that dark money spending. the louisville courier journal in an editorial back in june of 2012 described the problem very

well. and i'll quote them. "money buckets of it, tidalwave tidalwaves that one pundit has dubbed'bed 'the tsunami of slime'." well we who are in this political world have experienced the tsunami of slime that the citizens united decision unleashed. in the 2014 midterm elections "the washington post" has reported, at least 31% of all independent spending in those elections was spent by groups that don't disclose who their donors are. you don't know who's behind the money. you know the candidates know who's behind the money. but the public doesn't know who's behind the money. and that 31% doesn't even count what are called "issue ads" where somebody says that, you know the presiding officer, for instance has a terrible

position on this issue and you need to call her and tell her that her position is terrible and anti-american and wicked and that she's a awful awful and on and on they go. so that whole issue bit also dark isn't even part of the 31%. and the big obvious thing that the citizens united decision completely overlooked is that if you give big corporations and hugely wealthy special interests the ability to spend on elections, guess what else you give them? you give them the ability to threaten to spend or or to promise to spend and you know that those threats and promises are never going to be in any "regime" of effective disclosure. that is the ultimate private exercise of political influence and we have no idea how big the effect is of those silent threats and promises, silent at

least to the public. the american people are pretty fed up, mr. president. "the new york times" this week reported on a poll -- and i'll just quote a little bit from the story. "the findings reveal deep support among republicans and democrats alike for new measures to restrict the influence of wealthy givers, including limiting the amount of money that can be spent by super super pacs, enforcing more public disclosure on organizations now permitted to intervening in elections without disclosing the names of their donors, and" the story continues, "by a significant margin voters reject the argument that underpins close to four decades of supreme court jurisprudence on campaign finance that political money is a form of speech protected by the first amendment." clearly, money facilitates

speech but it also facilitates bribery. it also facilitates simply bludgeoning political actors and political parties with pressure. now, the results here, "more than four in five americans more than 80% of americans say money plays too great a role in political campaigns and two-thirds say that the wealthy have more of a chance to influence the election's process than other americans." that's not healthy when 80% of americans think that money plays too great a chance and two-thirds think they don't have as equal part in the election compared to the wealthy. i'll it unto read. "those concerns and the divide between washington elites and the rest of the country extend to republicans. three-quarters of

self-identified republicans support requiring more disclosure by outside spending organizations, and republicans in the poll were almost as likely as democrats to favor further restrictions on campaign donations." so if three-quarters of self-identified republicans support requiring more disclosure by outside political spending organizations, i would hope that i could get support for this amendment, which will require some disclosure. it would require any company that contracts with the department of defense -- and they get big contracts billions -- hundreds of billions of dollars -- to disclose all of its campaign spend over $10,000. it is a requirement that would apply tall the corporate officers and board members and anyone who owns 5% or more of the company. when there's that much money

sloshing around in the defense budget and when political actors are make the decisions about where that money goes, we ought to be able to connect the dots between those corporations and who they're giving big money to. so this is a very simple disclosure provision. again, 75% of republicans support increased disclosure. and, in fact, a considerable number of republicans here in the senate used to support disclosure. over and over again you see members who are still here, including the majority leader, who were ardent supporters of disclosure ardent supporters of disclosure, that is, until it turned out that after citizens united the big dark money tended to come in on behalf of, guess what? -- republicans. and so the disclosure principle evaporated and -- but i think

it's got to come back. the public is sick of it. it's time we cleaned up the political process from all this dark money. the it's totally consistent with the premise of the citizens united decision, and so when the time comes for me to call up this amendment and get it pending, i will do so with the hope that we can find some republican support for the american people being allowed to know who's spending big bucks to influence elections. we're entitled to know that. one other thing i'd like to speak in favor of here is senator reed's amendment my senior senator senator jack reed of rhode island, to cut the so-called o.c.o. budget gimmick from the defense bill. i'm on the budget committee and i have heard really passionate protestations from my colleagues on the budget committee about the importance of reducing the deficit, not dealing with the national debt, reducing

borrowing, deficit spending, and all of that. well when it comes to this particular bill, suddenly all those concerns have gone completely out the window. and they're funding a significant portion of this defense authorization with imagineimaginary money with an account that is not intended to support ongoing, continuing baseline defense expenditures and that is reserved for overseas contingencies, and that, therefore, doesn't have to be paid for. so it would be a clear increase to the debt and the deficit to go down this road and we would very much prefer that instead of using the so-called o.c.o. gimmick to fund this authorization with deficit spending that we can sit down and have a mature and consequential discussion between the white house and the senate

and the house on where our spending is going to go, in what accounts we're going to be automobile to do it, and before we start going account by account through the appropriations process, we have a plan in mind so that we don't find that certain favored accounts get dealt with first and then the rug gets pulled out from under the others. i think that's a reasonable way. and i support senator reed's amendment and his notion that we should have a bipartisan plan to replace the arbitrary sequester cuts including closing some wasteful tax loopholes. with that, i would yield the floor and seeing no one else seeking recognition, i will note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk shall call the role. -- the complerk clerk shall call the roll.

quorum call: quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president request that proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: thank you. i would request my interns jessica mcnaughton and holly o'brien be be given floor privileges for the balance of the day. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: thank you mr. president. when we talk about security issues and the vulnerability we have as a nation, i can think of no other area where we face such challenges and yet such opportunities as when it comes to our energy assets and how we can utilize our energy policies in the intersect with national

security. the united states' inability to export oil is a vulnerability to us as a nation. at a time when we have risen to be the world's top producer of oil, our outdated 1970's-era ban on oil exports is causing us to miss out to miss out on a significant energy economic and security-related field of benefits. and, mr. president the good news is, is that we can change this. it's within our power to change that, and that's why i've come to the floor this afternoon. here's a fact: the united states is the only, the only advanced nation that prohibits crude oil exports. we're the only one. you have countries like australia, denmark norway, the united kingdom canada, even new

zealand all allow for both imports and exports just like the normal trade in any other commodity. i look at it, and it's distinctly weird that we would prohibit our own exports here. we're also in a position where our friends and our trading partners are openly asking us for assistance. they're coming to us and saying, hey, can you help? we're your friends we're your allies, you have the resource. mr. president, the world has changed dramatically. we've got new alliances. we have new threats. we have new hopes. we've got new fears. and it's my own hope that while the world may have changed our nation's role as a global leader has not eroded. and i think this is an area where we have an opportunity to prove that it has not eroded. our energy renaissance is a new thing, and i think sometimes it

takes time to understand the implication of new things, of changes. but here's where we've been. we have already held about a half dozen hearings on the topic of oil exports in the house and in the senate since just last january. i introduced this subject last january 2014, and i said at that time that 2014 was going to be the year of the report, where we would seek out the experts. we would ask the think tanks to weigh in on this issue. and so they did. and the reports that came out were numerous. they were considered. they were thoughtful. and they were all very, very helpful. reports coming out of the brookings institution the columbia university, the center for a new american security; too many to even list here. but the individual experts who