on does not support a nationwide determination of the safety defect in all of the information equipped in the driver's-side inflators. this isn't the view of the agency in the federal government obviously nhtsa but to protect the american people and and is so into so you are dramatically and diametrically in opposition to the view. is that accurate? and then he discussed this with his colleagues. there was a translation problem but he then answered the question and said and this is a quote from the transcript coming yester wrecked that is our statement. then i went on to say in conclusion and we will be asking this leader in the hearing on november 25, they demand a national recall and of course that wasn't the view of takata at a time. ..

8000 test done, now we have 50,000 has done. we have seen some patterns start to emerge in some of the testing and the data we've accumulated. that's what led us and all the other testing and analysis has been done by outside experts. we fight experts, i think you've seen the report -- >> yes, i was the person who quoted it. moving on the issue of rupture was first known by takata in

2004 and the first six of this occurred i believe in 2000. so this is been an ongoing problem of great significance here in the last six months how much have you can find? i believe it is $14,000 a day. how much in total mr. kennedy? >> i think dr. rosekind answered. to spend on asking for your answer. >> i believe it holds up to the 1.2 million. 1.2 million. >> have you paid the? >> to my knowledge not no. >> why not? >> that's part of the discussion and negotiation with nhtsa. they've agreed to suspend as part of the consent order but they have reserved the right to incur for the penalties as they see fit. >> now, based on your testimony to the chairman and ranking member, is it possible that

replacement airbags will continue to have ammonium nitrate indian speakers yes, sir, that will. some of them will. >> and you are confident that they will be safe for some period of time or in extended period of time? >> we feel that they are safe. that's why again as part of the consent order we are continuing to test outside the of the scope of the recalls and we're continuing to test to make sure the remedy parts arsenic. >> should those who are having an airbag replace asked whether their new airbag will contain ammonium nitrate and perhaps ask for a different replacement airbag? >> i am not really sure how to answer that. >> and other new automobiles

fresh off the similar lines that contain ammonium nitrate airbags? >> yes, there are. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. >> mr. bozzella, you indicate that the rate of compliance with recall drops dramatically. did i hear you right that 15% for older vehicles? and could you explain exactly figures involved what would be as low as 15%? >> i don't know that it mentioned exactly the numbers of -- >> perhaps you did. >> you're exactly right. the trend is that further out into the ownership of a vehicle the recall completion rate is lower. the question is why is that. second and third owners vehicles often on my second and third owners, they're difficult to find so the manufacturers are

doing everything they can run a working very hard to increase those completions. >> in conclusion because my time has expired, i'm concerned about those who have vehicles that they purchased not new. this would be people who might not be aware necessarily to the greatest extent someone has purchased a new automobile. we want to protect all of the american people, and this is of great concern i want to work with you and others and the committee to make sure that all americans are protected. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the chair thanks the gentleman. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from new york, five minutes for your questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank our panelists. the day before the subcommittee hearing in december, takata sent a letter to nhtsa in which the company rejected a national recall. part of the stated reason for taking the national recall was takata's contention that was not required by law to make a good faith determination of whether its product contains the safety

related defect or to conduct a recall because takata is not a manufacture of motor vehicles or of replacement equipment. mr. kennedy, this question was asked in the summer. but it want to hear from you now. do you agree with that statement, made by your company in december of? >> it sounds like a lot of legal -- i am certainly not a lawyer spent it's not legal. very simple. it says here that it is your contention that you are not required by law to make a good faith determination of whether a product is contained a safety related defect or to conduct a recall because takata is not a manufacture of motor vehicles or of replacement equipment. >> i would know the agitated i would have to do a little bit of research and get back with you.

>> very well. by entering into the consent order with nhtsa, it is my understanding that takata have submitted to nhtsa's jurisdiction, is that correct a? >> i believe it would probably be the proper term. >> that's correct. >> we've come to an agreement with the nhtsa. >> so that's correct, very well. do you now agree that takata is subject to the jurisdiction of nhtsa at least as to the laws and relations related to safety related defects? >> again, it's an area of come you're asking a lot question that i'm not really properly qualified to answer. i could certainly look into it and get back with you. i mean but so labor recognize its authority, especially the question that you're asking. and we have worked very hard with the nhtsa especially over the last three or four months to come to the agreement on the consent agreement, preservation order. >> do you not agree that takata

is required to decide in good faith what your product contains a safety related defects? >> we clearly did say in a dir the defect may arise in some the subject part is i guess the answer would be yes. >> mr. kennedy this takata plan for all the replacement airbags? >> i'm not sure what you mean i -- we are selling them. >> welcome to our airbags that now need to be replaced, correct? are you paying for this because we are working which one of our automaker customers to discuss financial responsibility and -- >> what does that mean? >> that means that we're having discussions with each one of the speed so you are not paying for the? >> i wouldn't say that we are paying 100% for everything with every automaker. >> so you're negotiating what you will pay and what you will not? >> which is a normal course of business on -- has come a normal course of business in the automotive industry.

>> india times article for me said automakers shared the blame for this massive recall times because quote testing specifications describe other vehicle manufacturers failed undercover quote-unquote, correct of? >> that was one of the conclusions. >> but is that correct the? >> we believe that is correct. >> can you explain that statement a little bit more? >> what it means whenever a supplier provides a product to an automaker, there's a specification that you are required to me. there's a certain set of test batch of to run from a certain quantity attest that you have to run. and we do that. and as a general rule we do that with every new product. we reviewed with the oem and to sign off on it so yes, we accept his or no, we don't these products went through that process. what the report was trying to say is that the specifications that were out there at the time don't, did not capture the issues that we are seeing in the

field to. >> using the manufacturers failed to uncover the fault. spent what we're seeing is the specifications that we tested to provide parts to did not encompass the scope of this problem. >> are you saying that they failed to uncover these faults? >> i'm not, i need will quibble about the wording but that's exactly company that's what speed so you're not take any responsibility of -- >> that's not what i said it all. >> okay. so you're saying they share the blame because they should've uncovered the fault of during this speed is what i'm saying is in the automotive industry products are developed to meet the specifications. typically if you meet the specification, you provided a part that is acceptable. >> i thank you, mr. kennedy. yield back it mr. chairman.

>> mr. bainwol may be allowed to enter. >> i appreciate that, mr. chairman. i say this not as as a letter or an engineer or someone who negotiates these contracts, but the specs that are let out when a contract like this is negotiated relate to performance specifications and do not relate to the fundamental notion that the product should be safe. this is about the for-profit deployment come in terms of which cars is going to be a properly fitted for but as an understanding that the provider will provide a product that complies with it. part of that is making sure that they controlled explosion is a controlled explosion. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the chair thanks chair thanks the

gentleman become thanks mr. bainwol. mr. guthrie is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much. transport i will direct this to you as well. i guess understanding is it really don't know the root cause, they really don't know if the product that failed was manufactured to specification. a test might have been been specifications but wasn't manufactured to specification and a field anyway? to do for the came from the oem issue. if you don't know the root cause you really don't know the answer to that, do you? >> that's part of the difficulty that we have with this issue. i think you've heard mr. to talk about, your dr. rosekind talk about. it's a very multifaceted, very complex issue as to what's going on. and there are different types of inflators. yard i think dr. rosekind said in different types involved. in one of them come into port we've got back in the past few months we've seen what looks like a manufacturing defect. that we think about moisture

into the inflator. that's on one of those big of the ones we haven't been able to make that determination. so i mean, and we have expended a lot of effort with a lot of experts to try to get to that. but, unfortunately, we have not yet got to a definitive root cause across everyone of these inflators. >> i understand. my background is automotive industries to get the product specifications, the blueprints come antiship to that. if they fail within the specifications and that's an engineering issue. if he didn't manufacture, that's your issue. seems like you to know exactly what that is. following on what my friend from tennessee was talking about if you don't know the root cause, i don't know if we got a good answer to this, how do you know the replacement part or to bring for the recall are not going to fail? what is the assured about? i think mr. lance try to get it

out as a. >> that's a very good question that many of the replacement parts that we are using a different designs do everything on the drivers side will be a completely different design. as i said about 50% of what we shipped last month with our competitors inflators that didn't you ammonium nitrate had not demonstrated issues in the field, to my knowledge. it will go up to 70% in the next month or so. and so we are looking to change to different inflator designs are alternate designs for the replacement parts as quickly -- >> but you already are sent to replacement parts know, right? had he known come if you're going to bring in a car for a recall to replace how do you know those -- >> that's the reason the consent order is written the way it is in order to require that we continue to test the remedy parts and we continue to test outside of the scope of the recalls in order to make that judgment. >> thank you tested before you ship the first product of?

>> we did spend and they passed the test? >> yes. >> there could be a manufacturing test you did that make them fail so until -- you to know these replacement parts peter smith confidence in one where making. the process has changed a bit overused as is a lot of them are using alternate designs that we have never experienced issues to our knowledge. but there is a percentage of them and that's exactly why the consent orders written the way that isn't why we're continuing to do the testing and analysis that we are doing. >> i think you said earlier you are shipping i think i wrote down about 700000 replacement gets? >> we shipped 740,000 740,000 in may spent it up to a million -- i guess you ship a daily -- >> every day. we get multiple trucks back every day with parts back from the field. >> how are you prioritizing? >> up to this point we have been able to keep up with demand for

replacement parts. the arctic couple of part numbers that are on backorder right to expect that back order completed at the next two weeks. obvious it's going to expand with this expansion when the letters start going out to the consumers but that's why we are adding additional capacity both internally come with seven to inflator lines coming in over the next six to 12 months. we've got additional inflator lines going in at our competitors come edition kit lines going in and are manufactured for doing so they're continuing to ramp up spaghetti maintain current production at the same time. >> that's a very good point. >> i have a question with the others. would you all talk about the replacement part as it is in your which like to comment on the placement can't process going on? anything you would like to comment on with in your previous? >> thank you. we will be looking at the replacement parts in the efficacy of the placement part of part of our investigation.

>> and i would simply note that the complexity of this one is enormous but it's not just 30 34 million units in the u.s. the our global issues as well. so production allocation prioritization are all hugely significant issues and that's why we think that in this instance nhtsa was appropriate to assert its coordination capacity. there's no other way to solve this in a fashion that guarantees fairness and guarantees expeditious our response as possible that's why we have done that. >> i would just add that the manufacturers are doing what they need to do to take care of theirofthe customers knowing what they know now. >> thanks a lot and i appreciated. i've worked in manufacturing. we didn't have any what we call in for the diamond or safety issues in our part, but trying

to find the root cause and when you can retreat the problem is know when you've found the root cause. we're all anxious to get to that point. >> and it has been one of the most difficult part of this whole thing. as i said anyone failure is unacceptable to us and the analysis failure rate is so low it's hard come as you can't turn it on and turn off your we haven't able to do that. >> once you do that speed is then we can turn off. >> thank you. i yield back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey for your five minutes of questions please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we have been hearing conflicting reports on whether -- this is for mr. kennedy. we have been hearing conflicting reports on whether the replacement parts of different than the defective inflators pick some news reports have talked about a change in the chemical composition and shape of the propellant used in the inflators. at the december hearing takata

talked about improvements made to the manufacturing process in recent years that said the inflators witnessing. i just wanted to understand this issue a little better, mr. kennedy. is there any difference between the replacement inflators and the original defector the inflators because it is that each one of the different inflator such talk about. hasn't mentioned about 50% of what we have been sent last month was outside the inflators completely different than our original inflators. on the drivers side we will be using these are alternate vin numbers designs are alternate outfit for everything to the drivers side is the one that those issues and the most severe issues. on the passenger side, right now the are a percentage of those are outside inflators, but they're still a percentage that are the same design inflator which was in the original

modules but obviously manufactured at a later time. >> in takata's defective information report commits of regarding for employers, to cut a note and i quote, continues come in just to produce a small number of psd i forgive it for uses parts. takata instance to seize reduction included for use as remedy parts. so again when does takata intend to stop producing those affairs as replacements speak with a couple of carmakers with some older vehicles that have not qualified a new inflator yet. we are working, and they've been working very hard to do that with us and with our competitors. and what the plan is in that dri cam i think they call phase four, the face for be to go out and get all of the remedy parts

that we supplied that were of that design, the psdi-4. >> when that happens and to stop producing these psdi-4 inflators as replacement what will takata used to replace the old one? >> we have committed as a vehicle in the manufacture. our competitors in place but we are by conflict primer i think i'm driver-side also have a later generation takata inflator with jessica and ended that is proven to be very robust and some of them will be using others to then are we to assume that the reason takata stop its production of these psdi-4 is because they are unsafe? >> that was one of the factors that was called out in some of the testing and the analysis that we have done in similar outside experts have done. as effective excellent order to

just eliminate that doctor completed we said we would quit making that. we to make of the production any longer. it was love for replacement parts. >> so that could be a problem? >> correct. >> you say will replace the insulation for stage victory mentioned the fourth stage will include subject to inflators previously installed as remedy parts, right? >> yes, sir speak with the people of their original psdi-4 inflators placed with a new psdi inflators say, for example, in december 2014 come with have got them replaced again speak with anyone that had anything to replaced with a psdi-4 into would have done it replaced again, yes, that's correct speak so i imagine it's a windows only had their inflator replaced as part of this recall may not realize that they've had that they have to have it replaced again. so how do you plan to communicate that to the

consumer. >> you know that's another great question and that's another part part of the consent order and degree but we have. we are going to work with nhtsa and the automakers to do a proactive safety campaign. we have been working with a professional media firm that has done these kinds of things in the past. we know that honda last year had initiated kind of a media campaign where like on yourself what you call that the google to be a banner at the bottom that said check your air bag. we talked to on the. we know what worked, what didn't work. we have succeeded from the consent order signed on may 19 to come back with this plan to nhtsa and work with than ever to increase that visibility and get that message out to people whose cars need to come back in. >> all right. thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> you're welcome. >> the chair thanks the gentleman to recognize the gentleman from houston for five

minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and welcome to our witnesses. my first questions are for mr. kennedy. one thing that is comes about and clear at this hearing from dr. rosekind and all of y'all is a lack of come with a little about the real cost of these defects. you know ties to humidity, heat, desiccant, bat wings and all sorts of things but no root cause. and that bothers me. [inaudible] modified version of lockheed. that plane had a defect. it was called -- them in the wings fell off the plane. that was the root cause of two crashes. that's hard to find because those planes were torn up and hit the ground. they did know what happened yet we found a what happened found at the root cause and those planes have been flying six years in our navy. so i've heard you say you know

again there is heat, humidity desiccant, propellants. you mentioned there's a tie with just a propellants out there without desiccant, correct? >> correct spent how many are out the right to? >> i would have to check and get back but it is a significant number spent how many in my home in houston, texas? 95% humidity and 95 degrees. we are at ground zero. 20 detail my people back home how many cars, 100000 cars? any idea speak with no. i do not know the number. >> what's the problem then with finding cars and putting desiccant in them, make sure how but take that out of the equation put that into right now. >> that's exactly what we are doing with every one of those bsdi, psdi-4 inflators. that's exactly what the first dri is. >> by the individual to be no backs out there was some sort desiccant, correct is that right? >> that's not what i'm saying.

>> oh, that's a problem. we don't know what's going on. i think it's safe to me. it's the propellant and some sort of problem with humidity and heat. how about make sure that goes into the equation, maybe find the root cause? >> or an alternate inflator but that's the plan would want to jump issues in the field which we refer to as bsdi psdi-4. that is what we're doing to the later inflators were replacing those with would have desiccant or they will be from one of our competitors spent okay. my questions are for the gentleman your from the manufacturers. there will be because with these recalls. is going to pay for them? would it be takata the manufacturers, dealers? is going to pay for all this recall, any idea speak with i can say that consumers do not pay. that's the critical point. my hunch is that maybe some debate about who actually bears

the cost. i think our perspective on where that is pretty clear. >> mr. bozzella? >> i would agree with mr. bainwol. the consumer will not pay. we need to take care of the customer. manufactures need to take care of customers working with dealers, suppliers and with the regulator to do so. >> how about the cost? for example, my truck as a recall notice. i got that taken care of by replaced the old. five minutes. any reply from those guys have is asserted at this is? spend more time on recalls speak with the dealers come out holders that are reimbursed for the recall and it's oftentimes governed by state franchise rules, but they are made whole. spent one final question for you, mr. bainwol and mr. bozzella. on the first bill i talk about

punishment. [inaudible] spring, texas. agenda he bought a used car, 2002 a quarter, and recall notice came out in 2100 he got in a crash this year never knew that his car was defective. how can you guys help make sure we track those cars from recall the actual owner because he had no chance to have a recall notice what he had no idea his car was defective? >> it's an important point and one we're very sensitive to. the fundamental notion with saved is it's a shared responsibility. certainly the states. football got to do a better job of tracing the ownership so that we can community and that's one of the reasons why we've got to this exercise a submission my opening statement about conducting research to figure out what makes people go in and get the job done. we've got to find a way to turn that trigger so they go in and get the work done. >> that's a great question and i

would simply add to that, as imaging in my testimony that we ought to consider looking at the point at which an owner registers or wheat registers his or her car at a point for further notification. in the case of the incident that you mentioned, had that approach the procedure been in place that own and they been notified at the point of registering that used car that wasn't open recall. we think that merits, it is worthy of merit. >> i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from from florida, mr. bilirakis. >> thank you. i appreciate it very much and thank the panel for the testimony. mr. kennedy, can you verify that some cars that were previously recalled that supposedly fixed will have to be recalled again for a second airbag replacement? >> yes sir. >> to the initial numbers on how many consumers are affected? if not, when we know and how will the consumers be notified

speak with him in consumers that would've had to bring their cars in twice? >> correct. >> i don't have that information yet. i think dr. rosekind a lot of the oems automakers are still entering their vin numbers and up to that would be easy speak how do you plan to notify the consumers? >> we are still working on that plan as part of the consent order we were given 60 days to develop this plan. we certainly want to do in conjunction with the automakers. we want to do something that's going to be at odds with the automakers. so we have as i mentioned a media firm that is familiar with these types of activities. we have some ideas on paper. we are working and we will certainly be reviewing those with the nets and knicks is involved as well as the automaker spent to why weren't these issues dealt with the first time they were recalled? in other words, i don't, there's just no excuse. it's inexcusable as far as i'm concerned, backing an end to the

why weren't these issues are dealt with the first i've? >> it's a fair question and it's a difficult question. i think you've heard from different people today. is an extremely complex issue. when we first started seeing some issues back in 2005 we did national recalls on a large number of parts and but that we had identified root causes. we thought we'd gotten everything in the phuket without we were doing all the right things. and then we started seeing these sporadic issues in the field and that's what led to the action that started last year. so it's been very elusive to us and it's been very, very difficult to get a consistent pattern that would tell us exactly what the root cause is. >> mr. kennedy, let me, i have a couple more questions. how can you possibly injure consumers, my constituents, a

second replaceable be effective and a third replacement will not be necessary? >> on both the speed can you assure my constituents that will be the case? >> they are going to be later designs or from our competitors when we're putting those in picked still after and that's why as part of the consent order we are still testing the remedy part to make sure that those are going to be sufficient for the life of the vehicle. and why we are continuing to test outside of the ranges of the recalls that were into dr eyes that were announced a couple of weeks ago. so we're trying to cover that. i can't tell you right now that everything is done but we are, we have anticipated that problem and we have an agreement with nhtsa that allows us to continue to look at the edit actions are required we will take action. >> since the first and second fighter rapture in 2004, it is true that takata has tested by the 128 airbags, 2004 is that

correct it was i'm not familiar -- >> in 2004-2008, correct? >> i'm not fully a number. i can doublecheck. >> deeply enough was done to investigate this issue and bring awareness to consumers on the potential risk and threat of defective airbags? was enough done speak was on the original ones? yes, we were able to identify what we thought and what are automaker customers thought was a very solid root cause. we had manufacturing data. we had test data. we were able to re-create the problem, but clearly there was something else going on. >> but more has been done? >> again, you could probably always say more could be done but what we did we thought and are automaker customers thought was sufficient to get to root cause and to take action and

that's what we did. >> mr. bainwol, one last question, mr. chairman. have any copies requested that takata remove ammonium nitrate from the inflators? >> that's an answer i don't have the answer to. question. and i will fight it and report back. >> please get back to us. thank you. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from gentlemen from oklahoma, mr. mullin, five minutes for your questions please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. kennedy, you have i've actually sat here and enjoyed watching you the ui very skillful on the way you approach your answers. i could probably take a lesson or two from the. but at the same time, we just don't seem to be getting the answers. i mean, you can tell the frustration this panel is getting. we've got a young lady that is taking over your shoulder bearing the scars of the mistake that was made, and you are still

not giving answers. i mean, i'm a business owner. i understand when we failed to understand when we make a mistake. but now what? what the solution was we did a recall and would replace them with other things that were still faulty? is no excuse for that zero. maybe this panel is just looking to hear you say we screwed up, but i know that will cause legal issues for you all but it is a screw up. taking blame is just that, hey, we messed up. we heard just a while ago who is going to be responsible for this? i don't know. what do you mean we don't know? who made the product? whose product was wasn't? whose name was on it? that's who should pay for it. i just wonder, i'm sitting here thinking okay maybe that's why we haven't been moving very fast, because you have it took

ownership of it. at the same time we've got no telling how many vehicles are out of there. more young ladies or young men are going to bear the scars again? or worse than that so what is going to not be able to finish out their life. what is that worth to you? how to put a dollar amount on that? what if it was your daughter? i've got three at home. i can tell you what it's worth. dodo you have a daughter speak with i have a daughter and a son. >> and a center would and should be pretty passionate about it and when you want they are the only up and say we will do whatever it takes we'll take responsibility for it? >> and we believe -- >> but, sir, you're still making what we believe 2004, we are

2015. how long have you been making airbags? >> since i believe 1987 spent how many more studies do you need to have? stood as i said, and i believe not trying to be evasive. you have heard from other people that have it in involved, very smart people. it is very multifaceted issue that -- >> multifaceted. that's a great term to use. we have political terms are all the time. we know how to talk a little bit around the circle. we are looking for ownership. i understand this complex but the products you make is very complex. i've been hit in the face with a few of them. >> me, too. >> fortunately i survived. i understand the issue about from impact to stopping you from the safety behind it. this can be complex but a

problem is a problem. it's not that complex. you do what it takes. you know you have to figure out, okay, what's a life worth but it all and the owner. i don't know how you can spend i don't how you can either, sir. >> instead he said the complexity of it can we don't really know the makeup of it but our competitors are finding out a product to replace. your competitors? you guys, sounds like to me you are willing to do anything but take ownership. your competitors? i can imagine sitting up there and think my competitor is going to fix my problem. spent we were doing to in order to get parts in the field faster. some of our competitors have produce -- >> he have known about it since 2004. >> not to the level we have here, sir. 2004 -- >> you identify there was a problem. you said you could we create the

problem. you knew there was a problem. >> and we thought we had a root cause at that time, too. we did -- yes, we -- >> how did you track them down? >> we work with the automakers that were involved. >> but we still have people who are not notified. we raise cattle, and if my cow for some reason i still and ends up in california and summit ends up with mad cow disease, it's not born with a birth certificate or a serial number or a barcode but yet we are able to track it all the way back to my farm. >> right. >> and we can't do that with an airbag speak with we can tell you exactly what airbag we sent the oem the automakers into what vehicle it is in. the issue for the most part has been getting that recall rates because it's the cost believe we found at the root of the problem. it's the cost. spent i disagree. spent badly want to find a problem you cannot convince me

we couldn't find a solution. we haven't even agreed on the panel that is in front of the who's going to pay for it. i think that's the root of the cost, root of the problem. mr. chairman, i yield back spent the gentlemen you expected the chair recognizes the gentleman from from illinois. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and for the fourth you thank you for being here and thanks a been willing to talk with us about these are important issues. into december hearing i asked our panel which included being daddy, toyota and honda if they agreed that sharing oem part numbers and other identifiable information with the automotive recycling industry would help increase safety. they agreed and expressed to improve efforts to identify the parts which are part numbers with recycled. earlier this year in february to transportation secretary fox did it he also sport auto manufacturers providing part numbers to be cyclers and that furthermore manufactured should provide this information in an easy-to-use format. they key here is this approach

would not require the creation of a new government program or bureaucracy but it's something the industry should tackle on its own. mr. bozzella and mr. bainwol, it appears we have unique incidents work regulators and industry seemed to agree on an approach to address a problem in large part because they don't understand that sharing this information will improve safety. but my question is this. if not answer, when and how did your members plan on making this information available to be cyclers? and are you aware of any discussion in the industry to help share this information to improve safety? >> i don't know the answer to your question. i will surely go back to our members that were on the panel and get back to you spent okay, mr. bainwol? okay. if you guys could because i understand you may be unaware of the issue come if you could maybe get the information and follow-up with the office, that would be helpful as we continued to explore this issue going

forward. i would ask you this. what can your organization do to kind of help facilitate this and make something like this happen? >> we will have a conversation with in our association and we will be able to get back to you after that point. >> i would simply note that this question of resolving and getting expeditious recalls that is an important priority for everybody come and we do see this as i said earlier and shared responsibility and we willing to work with anybody to make sure we get this job done as quickly as humanly possible. >> great. mr. chairman, that's all the questions i have. if you'd like my time i can you do to you or i can yield back spent we will accept yielding back. i think the judgment. the gentleman yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. electric is unanimous consent to submit a written statement of the american car rental

association and the consumers for auto reliability and safety into the record. >> without objection, so ordered ordered. >> thank you, sir. >> not recognize myself for just one follow-up. i dwelled on the ammonium nitrate as a proponent of this question is really for anyone. my prior life i was association edited works on an emergency rent it on an airbag deployment, and every member burns and eye injuries, four armed guards knee burns when the bag went off but i also recall when the bag with all but also because recall that there were environmental concerns about sodium inside and mr. kinzinger brought up about salvage our jackets are about is getting into the environment. so are there any other propellants that are being worked on? is there like a purely gas propelled, carbon dioxide is something, or nitrogen, something that would not have the characteristics come explosive characteristics of

ammonium nitrate or the toxic characteristics of a sodium azide? yes, sir. there are a wide variety of employers out there. some we call them coal gas and fighters. they are just a cylinder that is filled with gas under high pressure and have a small but neither that hit a little burst disk and the gas comes out of garçon we call hybrids that cassanova little bit of propelled ticket he disappeared usually it's not ammonium nitrate and most of them. then there are alternate solid fuel out of their primary quantity nitrate is that most of the industry uses now and when we are transitioning to. we can fight all kinds of information if you would like to take a look at come and summer better and other applications than others. >> what is the better you're forgetting something that is less explosive than ammonium nitrate and less toxic than sodium azide? >> it would expect to some of the trade-offs i was talking

about, size, weight, performance, and causes one one of them. them. some of those cows and players are bigger so it's harder to get them in a studio for instance. so there are those kind of trade off the we can survey provide any kind of information that you're interested in. >> i would appreciate you making that available to the subcommittee. i think it would be helpful. >> very well. >> scenes are no further members wishing as questions i do want to thank all of our witnesses for the participation in today's hearing. it has has has been a long want the perfect euros i remind members they have 10 business days to additional questions for the record. i asked what is it is in the response within 10 business days upon receipt of those questions and without objection the subcommittee is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] >> coming up in about 30 minutes the state of iraq's parliament talks about iraq's challenges. the parliament is considering legislation that it analysts have said a centric of the country's ability to fight isis.

the u.s. institute of peace host the event live 3:15 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> on saturday december potential and declared republican presidential candidates gathered in boone iowa, you senator joni ernst first roast and ride honored veterans and included a nearly 40 my motorcycle ride followed by a pork roast. wisconsin governor scott walker had these remarks. [inaudible] hi. thank you. freedom, endowed by our creator defined by our constitution.

let's defended each and every day by the men and women who proudly wear the uniform of these united states. we will say over and over again but we can't say it again. with all the pressure sitting at thethe systemic and would you stand and wave your hand for those serving today and add to them the families who supported them? i want to thank all of our veterans but particularly when i was out before shaking hands us a couple of world war ii veterans. today, 71 years ago was d-day. and so not -- let's remember those that gave the ultimate sacrifice, not just on that day but all throughout our nation's history. that's just pause for a moment. thank you. thanks for coming out. it's been a blast. i had a lot of fun.

harley davidson or me just a few blocks from my home just outside of milwaukee, wisconsin, five what you think you're great senator joni ernst in a chance to ride with her today but we wrote in with her husband and about 300 writers from the bar in des moines and we just had a blast and thank you for keeping the rant away. i brought my ranger just in case but it's nice we didn't have to use it. not identified as join in the right for this event but thank you. thank you to i love senator who knows how to castrate a big come ride a dog come and cut the pork from washington, d.c. wouldn't it be nice to give her an outlet and why does to help get the job done? you've got a great team in iowa. jeff hirt and chuck grassley. after this i'm going to write up we run up to me since it and don't chuck grassley out. ya terry branstad, my good friend come and kim reynolds to

a great team in congress and its funny a lot of you don't know a little trivia, chuck grassley was once my state representative. you may not know this but my father is a preacher. we were on a first call for them was in colorado springs colorado. i was born in 1967 but in 1970 we need to a small town 450 people called plainfield, iowa and i was there from 1970-1977 and chuck grassley was my state representative. how about that? and he is just as honest today as he was there. my father has long since retired and become chuck grassley comes on tv he says there is an honest man and you know more than any. thank you present a great game and chuck grassley and joni ernst to united states senate from iowa. now we moved in 1977 when i was in third grade to another small town called doublethink i think back over the years i had the great opportunity early on in life as a kid my first job was

washing dishes at the countryside restaurant. restaurant. other than that up to the big time. i started flipping hamburgers at mcdonald's or funny story, i was flipping burgers. mymy friend you might've heard of them paul ryan was flipping burgers down the road in james dubik road in james dubik tell the difference is paul smage told me to flip and was in the back because he had the interpersonal skills to work the front cash register. my manager might have thought of this but she didn't just does. i think about that growing up in a small town like a lot of small towns across this country not just for me and my brother but we look back in life. my parents my dad was a small temperature at the first baptist church but my mom was a part-time secretary and a bookkeeper. we look along the way and we realized, given for them and my grandparents, my grandparents on my moms side were farmers. didn't have indoor plumbing into my mother would often junior high school. my dad's dad was a machinist for 42 years in rockford illinois.

i look back at my life and realize my brother and i did not inherit fame or fortune from our family. what we got was more important than that is doubly that if you work hard and you play by the rules you can do and be anything you want in america. that's the american dream and we need to stand up and we need people in washington who are going to fight so that every american can live their piece of the american dream can not leaders who say one group versus another the people who lead the entire country forward saying anyone who wants to work hard going to wants to live by the rulesrules and play by the rules should be able to live their piece of the american dream in this great country. and its early doesn't mean with more government. sometimes i listen to the president, people like hillary clinton. you think they measure success in governed by how may people are dependent on the government.

we can we not just as republicans but as americans, we should measure success by just the opposite but how many people are no longer dependent on the government. you see, because we understand that true freedom and prosperity not come from the mighty hand of the government. they come from empowering people to live their own lives and control their own destinies through the dignity that is born of work come of worker i think about going up in a small town i don't have one of my classmates sang scott on sunday when i grow, to become dependent on the government. nobody sign my yearbook sang good luck become depend on the cover. one of the great places in one of the few places left in the world but it doesn't matter what class you were born into. doesn't matter what your parents did for a living. in america the opportunity is equal for all but the the outcome is still up to each and every one of the. if you remember nothing else

today, remember this. there's a reason why we take the day off to some but the fourth of july and not the 15th of april because in america we celebrate our independence from the government, not our dependence on it. and finally on a day when we think about 70 winters ago think about the men and women many of whom have made the ultimate sacrifice it's time can. >> we start leading not just here but around the world. i think about the contrast in front of us. we've got under barack obama and a positive hillary clinton mode many others because of her role as suggested, we have a situation where in america we have a president who draws a line in the sand and allows people to cross it. someone who calls isis the jv squad, who called yemen a success story, who calls iran a place we can do business with. think about that.

when i grew up in a small town i remembered a tree in front of our house. back in 1970 my brother and i would put yellow ribbon around that tree because americans like my friend kevin hartman who lives in wisconsin was a marine the youngest marine held hostage. people like him were held for 444 days. the country has not changed. we should not change our position in getting with iran. -- dealing with iran. now more than ever in american we need a commander-in-chief who will tell it like it is an to the people of this country and those listening around the world that radical islamic terrorism is a threat and we're going to stand up and fight it. we need a leader in america who will reaffirm that israel is actually an ally and start treating her as such.

and we need a president in this country who is going to stand up and tell the american people what may be hard to say at that this threat is like the threat we faced in the cold war were contain is enough. no. instead this is like a virus and if we don't take it out we are in trouble. and so i believe, i don't leave an open ended engagements but we need a president who will say this is going to take a week or a month or maybe even a year i on behalf of your children and mine would rather take the fight to them instead of waiting until they bring the fight to us. we need to lead from the front again in america. and so i appreciate you being all out here today. i know now more than anything what has made this country great, what is made this exceptional, what has made us the greatest country in the history of the world has been all throughout our nation's

history in times of crisis can be economic or fiscal military orspiritual, what has made america amazing has been in those times of crisis there have been and women of courage who have been willing to stand up and think more about the future of their children and their grandchildren that they thought about their own futures. i would submit to you now this is one of those times. this is one of those moments in american history when we can look back and to future generations we were there. we stood up and heeded the call. we did what was required to make america great again. with your help as example of a going to do. god bless you. banks are coming out. god bless our troops, and god bless the great united states of america. thank you. >> the senate about the couple entered the house resumed legislative work tomorrow. here's more on the week ahead in congress from the capitol hill reporter. >> ms. foxx can we start on the

house side specifically, there are reports this morning that trade may come up in the legislative process. is that something you are hearing? >> caller: yes. it sound like they could come up at the end of the week. we should remember that guy significant number of amendments that could come up after debating appropriation bills that might slow down the process towards the end of the week or even push it into next week but there's this dash now to get enough republican and democratic votes to pass the trade bill. it looks like democrats are still struggling to get more than, about a dozen folks to get onboard with the trade bill. so that will be something to watch over the next few days house of representatives speaker boehner was asked last week about you get the votes. he said he would have to. what does it look like as far as counting and things like that? >> caller: it sounds like republicans are making some inroads very slow that i think is sort of an interesting moment for paul ryan who is leading

this effort of course leadership is also from and who is very engaged with dr. bush of age of is become sort of their number one priority and this is consuming much of their time at this point. democrats are going to be come as a bit bit more difficult is exactly whether they're going to give the kid they're they're going to need about 2031 only so far some have said publicly they support this attribute so that is is far short of the number they will need. republicans will have to work harder on this for democrats would have to make up some of those deficits but it's harder to do when democratic leadership isn't supporting the same kind of way that republican leadership is house of representatives that's the house side. would expect on the senate side as far as activity is concerned? >> caller: for the next few days looks like focus is going to be on the defense bill by

senator john mccain from the armed services committee. it looks like senate democrats are taking some and that additional $38 billion been added to that overseas contingency operations fund. that's meant to avoid this automatic budget cuts known as sequestration. democrats are not sure if they're going to go for this yet. they say that this budget is sort of gimmicky, they are not decide on whether or not decide on whether or not they will go along with the republicans. that seems to be that's going to eat up much of the time innocent over the next few days but senator john mccain is optimistic by the end of that week, this week it will be wrapped up. >> host: we talk specifics but as for spending bills what still has to be as far as spending bills to keep government and programs operating? >> caller: well if they house of representatives passes transportation and defense this week, that leaves them with six more to do. we have to remember it's very unlikely that all 12

appropriations bills could get past by the end of the fiscal gig that something that hasn't happened since the 1990s. it's unclear whether or not that's going to be possible that they are about at the halfway point if they pass the other appropriation bills postmen lauren fox with "national journal" talk about the week ahead in congress. thank you very much. >> caller: thank you. >> and the senate comes in next for more work on the defense department authorization bill that he programs and policy for the fiscal year 2016. live here on c-span2. d the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal father, to whom all hearts are open, and from whom no secrets are hidden, with reverence we pause to pray that

you would make us good enough for the challenging times in which we serve. lord, you made humanity to dream so enable us to see that horizon that promises a better nation and world. keep our eyes open to the everlasting hills, the illuminated skies, the bright sunrises of hope and beauty and truth. keep ever before our lawmakers a vision of your perfect kingdom when all people will fulfill the law of love. help our senators to shut out

all distracting sounds and obstructing movements that prevent them from receiving your guidance. we pray in your sacred name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: madam president a few days ago the majority leader was reported to have declared on abconservative talk radio -- a conservative talk radio show that under his leadership the senate will shrink its constitutional duties but not confirming judges. he said we may confirm a few where only republicans give the president the names. but other than that, we're going to do none. i assume it's accurate. i hope it's not but i assume that it is. it would be a very stunning and disappointing declaration that the senior senator from kentucky especially since he argued for the fair consideration of president bush's appeals court nominees, would now switch his position. in july of 2008, here's what he

said: "even with lame-duck presidents there's an historical standard of fairness as to confirming judicial nominees especially circuit court nominees." that's a direct quote from the majority leader. these are his words. not a single word has been made up. that's what he said. even with lame-duck presidents there is a standard of historical fairness as to confirming judicial court nominees especially circuit court nominees. the record is spread with many quotes that he has given just the same. he also said in that same year -- quote -- "no parties are to blame on the confirmation process. but what is going on now or more accurately, what is not going on is yet another step backward on politicizing the confirmation process something we had all hoped we would get

beyond." mr. president, earlier my friend from kentucky said -- quote -- "judicial nominations need to be treated fairly and commitments need to be kept." and even earlier than that, here's what he said -- quote -- "on the issue of judicial confirmations, the majority leader and i discussed this matter publicly at the beginning of the congress." he's talking about he and i are talking. "and we agreed that president bush in the last two years of his term would be treated as well as president reagan, bush 41, president obama were treeted in the last two years of their tenures in office. because there is one common thread and that was the senate was controlled by the opposition party." so what he's saying there, what he wanted is bush to be treated the same way that bush number one presidents reagan and clinton had been treated. mr. president, he got that with large numbers of judges being

appointed. but we're here now with the statements ringing loudly that the majority leader is intent on writing off the senate's constitutional duty of offering our advice and consent now that president obama has nominated individuals to the federal bench. the republican leader is a student of the senate. he says he is. i believe that. and i'm confident he understands the senate cannot and should not neglect the constitutional obligations that we have. the senate cannot simply ignore critical vacancies in their last two years of any president's term. what a bad standard to set and especially mr. president, with the growth in certain communities, we have a number of judicial emergencies that have been determined. it's all the more troubling that the majority leader wants to pick an unnecessary fight over judges just as republican

senators are working with the president to fill vacancies in these states. the majority leader is essentially telling other senators that their judicial recommendations simply don't matter. democrats, independents, republicans; the majority leader is telling the chairman of the judiciary committee that regardless of the judicial nominations his committee continues to report out could be blocked by the senate floor. but i do say this. this is a caveat. the present judiciary committee is doing the same thing that was done by the president -- chairman of the finance committee when he was chair of the judiciary committee. he didn't have to worry about a lot of names on the calendar here because he simply held no hearings in the judiciary committee. that same thing is being done now. so we don't have a lot of people on the calendar because they're not having any hearings to speak of in the judiciary committee.

i've talked here on the floor before about the nomination of phillipe restrepo for the third circuit court of appeals in philadelphia. after repeated delays, the committee is finally considering his nomination on wednesday. he's been waiting for months. this is an incredibly qualified nominee who enjoys vast support including both senators, one a democrat one a republican. the republican senator from pennsylvania has said judge restrepo would be a superb addition to the third circuit. if that is the case why have we waited months for a hearing? it must have been shocking for the junior senator from pennsylvania to learn his judicial pick would face another delay, a delay indefinitely perhaps. this is blatant rejection of the senate's constitutional duties. just senator mcconnell argued for fairness of president bush's

nominations, it is not unreasonable for the democrats to expect the same. the same measure of fairness that senator bush -- i'm sorry -- that president bush got. that was in the 110th congress. regardless of whether a state had two democrats two republicans or a split delegation senate democrats brought president bush's nominees up for a vote. by this point in the seventh year of george w. bush's presidency senate democrats confirmed 18 judges, 3 circuit court judges and almost -- in almost six months the republican senate has only confirmed four district court judges. and to put this in perspective during the presidency of bush, we confirmed four in one month. so perhaps the majority leader's comments about a judicial slowdown were just confirming what he's already done to block the president's nominees. i repeat, the committee is being held the same way that the

present chair of the finance committee did when he was chair of the judiciary committee. just holding no hearings. that way there's nobody on the calendar or very few. the senate republican in nature hasn't confirmed a single circuit court judge. not even a consensus nominated like kara stoll to be on the federal circuit. she was reported out of committee by a voice vote in april. nothing so far. not even doing hearings -- i repeat -- on most nominees. therefore, no one is to report to the floor. actions speak louder than words and the majority leader can demonstrate his remarks or misinterpreted. i would certainly hope so by scheduling a prompt vote on the stoll nomination. we should schedule a vote on her nomination no later than this week. she is the only appeals court judge waiting a vote before the

senate for the reasons i've just said they won't hold hearings. both these nominees -- restrepo and u.s.s. cole u.s.s. -- and stoll deserve a vote now. compared on what the majority leader said on a talk show, i guess appealing to the right wing even more than what has happened recently, and that's quite a bit. let's hope he does not treat judicial nominees as they have never been treated before. let's hope that the senate will quickly confirm at least these two qualified judges. we need a lot more, but these two would be a step in the right direction. i note there is no one on the floor. i would ask the chair to announce the business of the day. the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of

morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. mr. reid: i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:.

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: order in the gallery.

quorum call:

mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent that the proceedings under the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. morning business is closed. under the previous order the senate will resume consideration of h.r. 1735, which the clerk will report.

the clerk: calendar number 99, h.r. 1375, an act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for military activities and so forth. mr. mccain: i ask further reading be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: madam president i note with some interest over the weekend russia wields aid in ideology against west to fight sanctions on the front page of the "new york times". warring ukraine that has pitted russia against the west is being raised -- waged not just with tanks, artillery and troops. increasingly moscow has different kinds of weapons according to american-european officials: money ideology and disinformation. yesterday and today in the "wall

street journal," iraqis call for a deeper overhaul of army. mistrust of military leadership among troops is widespread and crisis of confidence. right below that, airstrikes kill dozens use fighting in yemen intensifies. and reporting of a world in turmoil. and the fire continues. to top it all off today the president of the united states speaking to reporters at the g-7 summit in germany, president obama said -- and i quote -- "we don't yet have a complete strategy about how to combat isis." i would remind my colleagues that on august 28, 2014, nearly a year ago, president obama

stated -- quote -- "we don't have a strategy yet to fight isis in iraq and syria." my friends nearly a year after the president said we don't have a strategy yet to fight isis in iraq and syria he said again we don't yet have a complete strategy about how to combat isis. i'd like to see the incomplete strategy. i'd like to see something. i'd like to see -- i would not like to see continued continued of the 75% combat missions flown in syria return to base without firing a weapon, because we don't have forward air controllers on the ground. when is this administration going to figure out that if you

want to destroy the enemy you've got to be able to identify the enemy and that requires air controllers on the ground and that means u.s. troops. i know that whenever i and some others say that we need additional u.s. troops, people recoil. oh no, here we go again. well what's going on now -- what's going on now is isis is succeeding. bashar al-assad is hanging on. iran is on the move. they now dominate four countries: syria iraq, lebanon yemen. and the president of the united states says we don't yet have a complete strategy. well the pentagon's a pretty big place. there are hundreds of people that work for the national security advisor and somehow nearly a year later we don't yet have a strategy while isis goes

from house to house in ramadi with lists of names and they execute people and they kill three-year-old children and they burn their bodies in the streets and the atrocities in syria continue as bashar al-assad barrel bombs innocent men, women and children, barrel bombs, by the way supplied by iran and russia. and we don't yet have a -- quote -- "complete strategy." well mr. president i have never seen the world in more crisis nor has henry kissinger nor have most other long-term observers of our nation and the world. i would urge my colleagues to take a look at a map of the middle east on january of 2009,

when president obama was sworn in as president of the united states and look at that map that same map today and color in where there is isis, where there is iranian domination, where there is conflict and where there is a complete lack except in the state of israel, of democratization or the kinds of freedoms that the united states of america stands for. so all i can say is one can wonder -- one has to wonder whether this president just wants to wait out the next year and a half and basically do nothing to stop this genocide, bloodletting horrible things that are happening throughout the middle east, who, in the view of the director of the federal bureau of investigation and the director of the c.i.a.

say, as far as isis is concerned, pose a threat to the security of the united states. why do they say that? obviously because it these thousands of young men who have gone to eernlg and iraq and -- gone to syria and iraq and being radicalized and trained are going to go back to where they came from. when baghdad didi left camp buqa, and the day he left, he said we'll see you in new york, mr. baghdadi is not known for his sense of humor. so what we are trying to do in this legislation that is before the senate is to provide the means, the training, the equipment, the care for the men and women the much-needed reforms that i have been over and will continue to go over, whether it be in retirement, whether it be in acquisition whether it be in a number of other areas of the department of

defense and the way we defend this nation that are in my view long, long overdue. and now we see the president of the united states threatening to veto to legislation if it gets through the house and the senate over the issue of o.c.o. that as my colleagues know is overseas contingency operations which began with the conflicts in iraq -- afghanistan and iraq, as a means of providing additional funds to pay for and fund the operations in those countries as the name implies: overseas contingency operations. i have opposed sequestration. i think it's a terrible thing to inflict on the men and women who are serving in the military, much less our national security. i agree with our uniformed

leaders, every one of whom has testified before the senate armed services committee that if we continue sequestration it puts the lives of the men and women who are serving in the military at greater risk. i don't know of a greater obligation that we have than to prevent the lives of the young men and women who have volunteered to serve this country at greater risk. but that's been lost on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. so now we have the o.c.o. but it funds the defense of this country at the levels that the president requested and i don't like it. i don't like it because it only can give them one year of planning. what the military really needs is to be able to plan for at least five years ahead of time. we can't build new weapons and new ships and new airplanes on a year-to-year basis. but it is better than the sequestration which as i said, increases the threat to this

nation's security. so last week the white house issued a statement of administration policy threatening to veto this national security legislation. the threat hardly comes a surprise. after all the president has threatened to veto for some reason or another every defense authorization bill since 2011. the white house's compilation of complaints is long but short on substance. it makes clear that the true basis of administration's veto threat has nothing to do with defense. in objecting to the use of $38 billion in overseas contingency operation funds or o.c.o. to meet the president's request of $612 billion the president will not fix defense without fixing non-defense spending. it is incomprehensible that as america confronts the most

diverse of crises around the world since the end of world war 2, that the president of the united states who has not yet been able to come up with a -- quote -- "complete strategy for the challenges that we make" that a president would veto funding for our military to prove a political point. the threats we confront today are far more serious than they were a year ago and significantly more so when the congress passed the budget control act in 2011. that legislation arbitrarily capped defense spending and established the mindless mechanism of sequestration which was triggered in 2013. as a result with worldwide threats rising, we as a nation are on a course to cut nearly $1 trillion of defense spending over ten years. every single military and national security leader who has testified before the armed services committee this year has denounced sequestration and urged its repeal as soon as

possible. this legislation doesn't end sequestration. unfortunately -- believe me, our committee would have done so if the ndaa were capable of it but it is not. the ndaa is a policy bill. this legislation is a policy bill. it is the appropriators that deal with the money. it only deals with defense issues and it doesn't spend a dollar. it provides the department of defense and the men and women in uniform with the authorities and support they need to defend the nation. it fully supports the president obama's budget request of $612 billion for national defense which is $38 billion above the spending caps established by the budget control act. let me repeat that. the legislation gives the president every dollar of budget authority he requested. the difference is our -- this legislation follows the senate

budget resolution. the senate budget resolution which was voted on time after time all night long and was agreed to by both houses of congress. it is the senate budget resolution. now, this is not my preferred option, as i said. that's why the committee included a special transfer authority in this legislation that allows the department of defense to transfer the additional $38 billion from o.c.o. to the base budget in the event that legislation is enacted that increases the statutory limits on discretionary defense and nondefense spending in proportionately equal amounts. this was a product of a bipartisan compromise, and it was the most we could do in the defense authorization bill to recognize the need for a broader fiscal agreement without denying funding for our military right now. here on the floor we've heard a number of misconceptions about o.c.o. funding many of which

have been fed by this administration's rhetoric. while o.c.o. is not the ideal way to fund our national defense, technical or budgetary consequences to using o.c.o. funding have been greatly exaggerated. o.c.o. is authorized and appropriated on an annual basis just like the base funding. o.c.o. funding is allocated to the same d.o.d. accounts as base funding. in fact, the defense bill purposefully placed the additional $38 billion of o.c.o. funding in the same amounts and activities for which the president himself requested the money. these activities have historically had a large share of o.c.o. funding and the account has been designated by the president as o.c.o.-eligible in the past and there are no laws that make o.c.o. funding expire any differently than base funding. the white house threat to veto this legislation and the desire for increases in nondefense spending is misguided and

irresponsible. with global threats rising, it simply makes no sense to oppose a defense policy bill. legislation that spends no money but is full of vital authorities that our troops need for a reason that has nothing to do with national defense spending. the ndaa should not be treated as a hostage in budget negotiation. the political reality is that the budget control act which the president signed remains the law of the land, so faced with a choice between o.c.o. money and no money i choose o.c.o. and multiple senior military leaders testified before the armed services committee this year that they would make the same choice for one simple reason. this is $38 billion of real money that our military desperately needs and without which our top military leaders have said they cannot succeed. the bottom line is this -- the

ndaa authorizes $612 billion for national defense. this is the amount requested by the president and justified by his own national security strategy. if the president and some of my colleagues oppose the defense bill due to concerns over nondefense spending, i suspect they will have a very difficult time explaining and justifying that choice to americans who increasingly cite national security as a top concern. the statement of administration policy raises specious concerns with a sweeping defense acquisition reforms in the ndaa. for example the white house asserted that transferring some acquisition authority back to the services is somehow inconsist the president with the secretary of defense's exercise of authority direction and control over all of the department department of defense's programs and activities. i could not agree more with that assertion. what this legislation does is merely switch who does what in

certain circumstances from different people who all directly report and serve under the authority direction and control of the secretary of defense. in this legislation for a limited number of programs to start with, the secretary of defense would look to the service secretaries directly for management of these acquisition programs rather than looking to the under secretary of defense for acquisition technology and logistics or at&l. this is not usurpation of the secretary of defense's power. it's called streamlining of authorities and reducing layers of unnecessary bureaucracy. there's a section in the legislation that would allow the secretary of defense to continue to rely on more layers of management if he chooses but only if he certifies to congress that this makes sense. there simply is not any undermining of the secretary of defense's authority in here. another concern raised has been that the transfer of milestone decision authority to the services would reduce the

secretary of defense's ability through at&l to guard against unwarranted optimism and program planning and budget formulation. unwarranted optimism is indeed a plague on acquisition and there is not a monopoly of that in the services. nothing in this bill overrides the requirement to use better cost estimates from the office of cost assessment and program evaluation. in fact, new incentives and real penalties imposed on the services in this legislation are designed to put some of this optimism in check. some in the white house and the department of defense want to perpetuate the absurd fiction that the current system is working, even after a wave of 25 program cancellations by former secretary gates all of the programs that are left under at&l management have over $200 billion in cost overruns. i want to repeat that. under the supervision of the

under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, there are programs that have over $200 billion in cost overruns. at&l is trying to have it both ways claiming credit for the improvements in the acquisition system while blaming the services for its long list of failures. this is exactly the program this legislation is trying to address. blurred lines of accountability inside the defense acquisition system that allow its leaders to evade responsibility for results. the reality is that in the modern world the at&l management process takes too long and costs too much. for example an army study looked at the time it would take to go through all of the at&l reviews and buy nothing repeat go through all those reviews and buy nothing. what was the answer?

ten years. ten years to buy nothing. the government accountability office looked at the much-vaunted milestone reviews that the office of secretary of defense is touting as a success. just one review takes on average two years. a similar review at the missile defense agency takes about three months. our adversaries are not shuffling paper. they are building weapons systems. it's time for us to do the same. i find it disappointing or maybe just outright laughable the statement of administration policy expressed concern about the armed services committee decision to downsize and streamline the bureaucratic overhead of the pentagon while at the same time complaining that we are not letting them downsize the fighting forces. let me repeat -- the administration wants to keep more pentagon bureaucrats while drawing down our forces and cutting military equipment like fighter aircraft. is there any member of this

chamber that believes we should increase the army staff by 60% over a decade and then turn around and slash our army brigade combat teams from 45 to 32? of course not. the administration cites reductions already taking place in the headquarters activities but ignores the fact that the air force is trying to achieve these reductions by playing a shell game. creating two new organizations and shifting people around. moving the deck chairs on the titanic didn't keep the ship from sinking and playing a game of hide the headquarters staff will not keep our headquarters from sinking under the weight of bureaucratic empires. as the white house asked the senate to preserve bloated staffs the statement of administration policy commenced the committee's effort to address strike fighter capacity shortfalls across the services. as deliveries of the f-35 have continued to fall short of projections, the air force has

continued to drain combat power. senior air force officials have repeatedly testified to the alarmingly -- alarming reality that their service is the smallest in its history with readiness at very low levels, all whier our airmen perform ongoing combat operations in the middle east, theater support packages in eastern europe, presence and reassurance to our allies in the asia pacific and maintaining a strong strategic nuclear deterrence of posture. the misallocation of air power resources over the past six years, coupled with the mismanagement of very expensive aircraft weapons systems procurement programs, places america's national security interests in jeopardy and endangers the lives of our men and women in uniform. our military commanders know this is true. that's why, for example the chief of naval operations and the commandant of the marine corps included in their funded priorities -- unfunded

priorities lists requests for f-18 super hornets for the navy and six f-85 joint strike fighters for the marine corps. the ndaa funds this request because senior navy and marine corps leaders have repeatedly testified to significant strike fighter shortfalls in the maritime services due to an unanticipated increased combat operations in the middle east, aging and obsolete fighter aircraft and significant delays in the f-35 joint strike fighter delivery schedule. bizarrely, the white house has apparently disregarded that system and instead labels these requests for more combat power for our military commanders -- quote -- unnecessarily. the statement of administrative administrative -- administration policy opposes the strong oversight measures put in place by the ndaa on the ford class aircraft carrier program. the administration objects to a provision in this legislation that reduces the cost cap for

the u.s.s. john f. kennedy up to $11.398 billion. but in the budget request the navy estimated the cost of this ship at $11.348 billion. in other words the bill still provides a buffer of $50 million. the provision simply lox in the savings the department has advertised which comes after more than $2 billion in cost growth. $2 billion in cost growth of one aircraft carrier. unless the budget request is misleading or inaccurate, this provision should not result in reduced capability or breach of the cost cap as the administration claims. it's also unfortunate the administration doesn't recognize the importance of conducting full ship shock trials on the u.s.s. gerald r. ford known as c.v. and 78. at abundance of new technology including catapult, reliance on

electricity rather than steam to power key systems there continues to be a great deal of risk in this program. testing cvn-78 will not only improve the design of future carriers but also reduce the costs associated with retrofitting the engineering changes. absent this provision the navy will delay by up to seven years full ship shock trials and shift this test from the leadership in the class to the second ship. that poses the risk of cvn-78 will deploy and potentially fight without this testing putting the lives of our sailors at risk. statement of administration policy also raised objections to a number of provisions related to military personnel. for instance, the administration bemoans the fact that the committee did not adopt its plan to raise existing tricare fees and implement new fees for medicare-eligible retirees and their families and members. the so-called consolidated health plan would not have

created a modern value-based health care system and the administration made no attempt at all to improve access to care quality of care or beneficiaryiaries with satisfaction. the ndaa on the other hand addresses those issues and more without raising enrollment fees or creating new fees. the white house expressed concern about provisions in the ndaa that call for a plan to privatize commissaries and a two-year pilot program at no fewer than five commissaries in the largest markets of the commissary system to assess the feasibility and advisability of the plan. but the rationale is confusing. the administration claims that -- quote -- there is an independent study under way to determine whether privatization is a feasible option and we should wait for those results prior to making any policy changes. the bill did require comprehensive review by an independent organization of the management food and pricing

options of the commissary system but in that section there was no requirement to study the feasibility of privatization of the commissary system. it's also curious that the administration warns against implementing a pilot program on privatization before the results of an independent study while at the same time encouraging the congress to adopt their own proposed pilot program. the white house policy statement reflects the president's feckless policy towards russia. despite the advice of nearly every statesman and policy expert that appeared before the armed services committee in recent months, henry kissinger george shultz, madeleine albright brzyzinski and others, and against the advice of both his secretary of secretary of state and secretary of defense the president has refused to provide defensive legal assistance to ukraine. the president's continued inaction for fear of provoking russia was seen by putin as weakness and invites the very aggression we seek to avoid.

the ukrainian people aren't asking for u.s. troops. they are simply asking for the right tools to defend themselves and their country and those are the tools that this legislation would provide. mr. president, we have seen vladimir putin commit aggression draw barks commit morigeration,with we are in the phase where he will seek continued aggression and territory grabbing by vladimir putin as he establishes his land bridge to crimea and puts additional pressures on baltic companies, moldova. meanwhile, we refuse to give the ukrainians weapons with which to defend themselves. this bill doesn't force the president to provide lethal assistance to ukraine. trust me, if there was a way to do that, it would be in this bill. the president has a decision to make on providing lethal

assistance to ukraine and that decision has consequences far beyond whether or not the president obligates the full amount of funds authorized in a decision that is long overdue. making matters worse statement of administration policy seeks flexibility to continue our nation's dependence on russian rocket engines. the ndaa puts an end to this by 2019 and stops hundreds of millions of dollars from going to vladimir putin and his cronies. it eliminates a launch subsidy that the commander of air force space command has stated impedes fair competition and directs the administration to stop playing games, develop a domestic rocket engine, not a new rocket system to replace the russian rd-180. mr. president, the russians are being paid billions of dollars for their rocket engines and there's a middleman unquote that has made tens of millions

of dollars just by moving these rockets from russia to the united states. there's an individual who runs this outfit who has been sanctioned by the united states government and we have elements in the pentagon that still want to deal with them for as long as possible. in testimony before the armed services committee in march general john kelly the commander of the southern command testified the amount of drugs and people that move across our southwest border, it doesn't seem all that secure to me. general kelly went on to state that the threat of terrorists crossing our southern border is extremely serious and if a terrorist or almost anyone wants to get into our country they just pay the if fare. they just pay the fare. that's why this bill would provide $45 billion for operation fay languages -- f

phalanx and aerial up to 60%. today the operation has directly contributed to more than 96,000 apprehensions along the border the administration to 282,000 pounds of drugs destined for our communities. the legislation directs the secretary of defense to provide up to $75 million in additional assistance to border protection operations to secure the southern border. potentially including the deployment of personnel surveillance assets and intelligence support from the u.s. military. and the ndaa would authorize an additional $50 million to address u.s. southern command's unfunded priorities to increase surveillance and interdiction operations in central america a primary transit point for illicit trafficking into the united states. finally i'm disappointed by the administration's puzzling response to provisions in the ndaa related to the detention

facility at guantanamo bay. the administration argues that this legislation's limitations placed on guantanamo transfers are unnecessary and beyond the scope of congressional authority. this is false. congress has long had constitutional authority over wartime detention matters and there are good reasons for congress to assert its authority in this instance. for over six years the administration has stated that one of its highest policy priorities is to close the detention facility at guantanamo but for that same period of time members of the senate have repeatedly requested a plan that spains how the administration will handle each of the detainees held there. unfortunately, over the last six and a half years the administration has consistently failed to provide that plan. now as the terrorist threat cold fronts around the world and

grows, the administration continues to demand that the facility be closed while failing to explain how it will do so. there are serious legal and security challenges inherent in moving this population to other be locations whether inside or outside the united states. congress is simply asking the executive branch to explain where it will hold those set for trial, how it will continue to detain dangerous terrorists pursuant to the laws of war and how it will mitigate the risks of moving this population. if the administration can provide those answers to these basic questions to the satisfaction of the american people then congressional restrictions on the movement of these detainees will be lifted and the plan can be implemented. now, congress' need for answers is even more acute after the administration transferred five senior taliban detainees under secret agreement to qatar

without prior notification to congress as required by law. the president of the united states blatantly violated the law which required before these five detainees were transferred to qatar that congress was notified six months ahead of time using the rationale they were afraid the information might here. is that the justification for breaking the law and then isn't it understandable there is secret six here on both sides of the aisle about any plan that they might have or may not have? isn't it reasonable that the congress of the united states should be presented with a plan that -- and shouldn't the congress of the united states express its approval or disapproval? but with a good -- the notification standard was enacted into law to allow the president the authority to implement his stated policy but with a good faith understanding that the people's

representatives could weigh in on these important decisions before the transfers happened. the president's failure to abide by the notification provisions undermined the trust congress had in the process and now as the taliban continues to plotattacks against u.s. service members in afghanistan, the administration is scurrying to figure out how to keep those five terrorists from the battlefield. this is not congressional overreach. it is congressional oversight. the president has decided that the security risk of keeping guantanamo open outweigh the security and legal risks of closing it. congress is seeking information that will allow the american people and congress to understand that decision. the american people deserve an explanation for how the president plans to execute one of his most repeated policy goals. there is some dispute about what percentage of those who have been released from detention at guantanamo have reentered the fight. some say it's as high as 30%

some are saying it's as low as 7% or 8%. there is no debate that the detainees who were released from guantanamo have reentered the fight, placing the lives of american service men and women in jeopardy. and in danger. and, of course, the five that were released were amongst the toughest the worst the hardest cases and now there is some question as to whether they will remain under strict supervision in qatar. so let me conclude by simply saying that the ndaa is far too important to be held hostage in a budget negotiation. for 53 consecutive years the congress has passed a national defense authorization act with threats to our national security multiplying around the world, i would hope that this year would be no different.

i want to thank my colleague from rhode island for all of the hard work that he and his staff and members on that side of the aisle have done in order to have a legislation that passed overwhelmingly through the senate armed services committee, and i hope we can move forward on getting that legislation through the united states senate consultation and compromise with the house and to the white house for the president's signature. and i would say again i read carefully the administration's objection to the president -- to the legislation as it now stands. these are not valid in some cases, in other cases we would be glad to negotiate with the white house as we go to conference with the house after completing this, but i sincerely hope and pray that there are so many provisions there that are important to the lives of the men and women who are serving in our military that

i would hope the president would take into consideration how important this is to the men and women who are serving to their lives, to their welfare their equipment, their training, and their ability to defend this nation. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reed: i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: mr. president, i have a modification of amendment numbered 1559 which i offer on behalf of senator dowsh and i ask the amendment be -- senator durbin and i ask the amendment be so modified. the presiding officer: any senator has that right and the

amendment is so modified. mr. reed: thank you mr. president. with that, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mccain: mr. president i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendments, call up amendment 1569 for senator burr. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from arizona, mr. mccain, for mr. burr proposes an amendment numbered 1569. mr. mccain: i ask the further

reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate resumes consideration of h.r. 1735 on tuesday june 9, the time until 3:00 p.m. be equally divided between the managers or their designees that following the use or yielding back of that time the senate vote in relation to the reed amendment number 1521.

i further ask that there be no second-degree amendment in order to the amendment prior to the vote. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mccain: we were ready to schedule further votes on amendments to the bill after the 3:00 p.m. vote on the reed amendment, and it's my expectation that we will be able to lock in those votes tomorrow morning. the ranking member and i have asked all of our colleagues to can adhere to a filing deadline for first-degree amendments to the bill at 6:00 p.m. tomorrow, tuesday. there are several hundred filed amendments already and those with further amendments should bring them down tomorrow by the close of business. i'd also like to add my colleagues i hope that we could agree to the filing deadline that will be approximately a week that we have been on the bill. i think that's hope -- hopefully that would be sufficient time for most of our colleagues or all of our colleagues to have time to file

amendments. senator reed and i will continue the practice of allowing pending amendments one on either side and we will be able then to schedule votes on pending amendments as they are -- one on either side. so i thank senator reed and i hope we can get a lot of debate and discussion. the reed amendment is very important amendment i respect senator reed's view on this issue, and we will let obviously, the body decide. i do hope that colleagues understand that we have many many filed amendments and we'd like to get to as many of them as possible. we'd like to have as many members be able to have their

amendments on this bill as they feel that is necessary. i hope we don't have to emphasize the importance of this legislation. i also look forward to members coming to the floor tomorrow and debating the reed amendment. it's a very important amendment, and i think it deserves the views of all -- as many members as possible, including those that are on the committee. so senator reed. mr. reed: the senator and i concur we should urge our colleagues to file their amendments. we have several hundred pending as the chairman pointed out and we hope that can be accomplished by 6:00 p.m. tomorrow afternoon and we'll be debating amendments and scheduling amendments for votes later this afternoon. thank you mr. chairman. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona.

mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent be the proceed to a period of morning business why with senators permitted to speak therein for ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. tuesday june 9, following the prayer and college pledge the journal of proceedings be approved to date and the time for the two leaders reserved for their use later in the day. following leader remarks, the senate will be in a period of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak therein for ten minutes each and that the time be equally divided with the majority controlling the first half and the democrats controlling the final half. further, that following morning business the senate resume consideration of h.r. 1735. finally, that the senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly conference meetings. the presiding officer: is there objection?

without objection. mr. mccain: if there is no further business to come before the senate i ask that it stand adjourned following the remarks of senator blumenthal -- following the remarks of senator blumenthal who i am told will appear shortly. and i suggest the absence of a quorum until senator blumenthal arrives. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. blumenthal: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i appreciate the courtesy of -- the presiding officer: the senator is advised that we're in a quorum call. the presiding officer: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. mr. blumenthal: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: i appreciate the courtesy of the presiding officer allowing me to speak this late in the day about issues that are vital to our national defense that will addressed tomorrow in votes that we will take then and during the course of the week on the national defense authorization act. but first i'd like to ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to larry babin of -- my

military fellow who is also a major in the army during the pendency of the national defense authorization act. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: thank you mr. president. the task before the senate in the national defense authorization act is nothing less than to craft a sustainable long-term strategy to defend america. in fact, it is to sustain our global leadership in a time of shifting alliances, significant challenges emerging threats while bringing a long-term balance and sustainability to our military. this defense measure is a solid start, but it must be made stronger to better meet the needs of our military men and women and our nation, as we enter this supremely perilous time. the danger to america has never been greater.

our foes have never been more insidious and pernicious, and many of the states opposing us have never been more willing to take measures that fundamentally contravene not only our security but our sense of moral right and wrong. and so i approach the national defense authorization act with this principle in mind. neither the united states nor our troops nor anyone involved in our national defense should ever face a fair fight. our men and women in uniform should never be challenged in the air on the sea on or on land with a fair fight. it should be one-sided in our favor. that's the basic principle. we must be superior in our

military armed forces. and i am grateful to the chairman of our committee senator mccain of arizona an extraordinarily distinguished veteran and a partner in a number of amendments to this measure, and to the ranking member senator reed, also a public servant of extraordinary distinction and a veteran for their leadership in bringing us to this point on a bill that attracted bipartisan support overwhelming support on the armed services committee where i am privileged to serve. the provisions in this bill will enable us to remain the strongest country militarily in the world. at the end of the day our values our way of life, our democracy give us our real strength.

but a military is necessary to defend those values and our quality and way of life and our values and traditions and our fundamental rights and liberties, which we worked hard last week to up-hold in the u.s.a. freedom act. i have filed a number of amendments that underscore the need for continuing improvement in this bill. they are forward-looking. one of them would modernize the national guard's helicopter fleet, providing vital capabilities for the military as well as the sustainability and growth for connecticut's dedicated defense industry. to protect our heros in uniform i've also proposed an amendment that would provide stronger legal tools against predatory lending and other abuses targeting our military men and women nearby their very bases where they are stationed.

these two amendments, 1820 and 1564 are the subject of extended remarks which i ask unanimous consent to be placed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: thank you mr. president. i've also joined ranking member reed in cosponsoring his amendment that will set forth a responsible and sustainability budget strategy, ending sequestration in our military budget and allowing that all of our key strategies are addressed. it is a critical vote. it allows us to choose sides as to whether we will put close to $40 billion in effect in our national debt rather than in our debt on our credit card rather than in a sustainable means to pay for it. each of us will have to decide whether we want sequestration which i am committed to end or

instead go forward by paying for $40 billion out of the operating contingent overseas contingent operations known as o.c.o., as we have done for years and years. sequestration cannot be allowed to become a permanent fixture. we must come together in a bipartisan manner to end it. in my time in the united states senate, i have fought for our national defense funding because i believe that our troops in harm's way deserve our full uncompromising unyieldingyielding support. we owe them the best equipment the best training, supplies, as well as institutional support and health care that the world has ever seen, because they are the best fighting force that our

world has ever seen, and they fight for a nation that is the best strongest and greatest in the history of the world not only in its military strength but in its fundamental values and freedom that allow us to speak in this very chamber as we wish to criticize authority to speak truth to power to debate, to come together as we did this weekend to worship and gather together and say whatever we please and think as we wish. and i hope that we will address this vital interest in making sure that we provide a a sustainable source of funding by ending sequestration rather than by relying on the overseas contingency operation aght account, which -- account, which is a form of borrowing. it diminishes sustainable

funding, not enhances it. it provides more uncertainty rather than a long-term strategy. this measure which i support enhances our security by providing for the construction of submarines, the virginia-class submarines that are necessary and in fact the ndaa provides $100 million in additional funding to what the president requested and it endorses equipping all attack submarines with an enhanced payload capability. particularly naval sea warfare is as important as it ever was and these submarines will do much to enhance our nuclear de-terntion. they are the stealthiest strongest weapons platform under sea every known to man.

likewise the research and development in the ohio replacement program will go forward. and the bill provides for $1 billion for six additional joint strikerstryker fighter aircraft. it also provides funding for the connecticut national guard. there are other measures but apart from the hardware is an important step for fairness in keeping faith and dealing fairly with our men and women in uniform, a 1.3% pay raise an $85 million directed towards improving financial literacy among our military. our militarymen men and women do not serve for the pay. they are not there for the financial compensation. but for their families, we need to deal with them fairly and keep fifth faith with them. in my role as ranking member of

the vents vent veterans affairs committee i have paid special attention to ensuring that this bill helps to ease the transition of military personnel into civilian life by establishing a new record of service card on their separation that will help prevent identity theft and financial fraud. and i urge the d.o.t., as does the armed services committee to discontinue its use of social security numbers on military records. it will help prevent identity theft and the kinds of breaches that put our servicemen at risk financially, just as they are often at risk physically in combat -- and their families. the bill also directs d.o.d. to stem the tide of opioid prescription drug abuse and it helps military retirees to get access to smoking-cessation

assistance. and i would go further and provide for stronger measures to deal with with opioid prescription, through drug formularies that provide treatment. that is one of the amendments that i will offer. finally, let me say on the two principal amendments that i will propose, we can strengthen this bill by fulfilling our commitment to the national guard, in providing 15 additional helicopters that are the workhorse of our warriors who serve in our national guard warriors who have distinguished themselves in combat but also in emergencies and disasters at home. these helicopters will help them serve at home and abroad, which is one of the reasons why these

helicopters, "a" model blackhawks with one of the priorities of the national guard association. i have listened to my national guard in connecticut. i have listened to representatives of the national guard distinguished warriors and veterans around the country and i know that these "a" model blackhawks are the workhorses, they are important in medium-lift capability for the national in support of homeland defense and response to emergencies. they now, many of them, lack onboard capabilities, modern capabilities that would enable them to be deployed overseas in hostile environments without significant up-grades to other parts of their configuration. they need that up-grade to be

configured properly. under the army's current budget projections, the army national guard will not replace these units until 2025, and we need to do better. we need do it more promptly, and that is why i am proposing amendment s. 1820. on the service members' civil relief act penalties quite bluntly, are too low. that is why i want to thank my colleagues ranking member reed as well as senators durbin murray and whitehouse, all of whom have been working tirelessly and have voin joined me in proposing stronger protections in the act doubling the penalties and making them as high as $220,000 for each violation in the event of multiple violations.

deterrence punishment, and a stop to this kind of financial abuse that may take place literally within sight of military bases abuse financially that we've seen by sallie mae when it foreclosed improperly on service members' homes. these practices can include these kinds of abuses involving foreclosure and other kinds of exploitation which sallie mae unfortunately engaged in doing. student lender sallie mae sidestepped requirements, "federal law protects our service members from having to repay loans under terms that are unaaffordable or unfair by charging excessive rates to borrowers who file documents approving that they were members of the -- proving that they were

members of the u.s. military, and this type of conduct is more than just inappropriate, it is inexcusable and it will not be tolerated." i ask my colleagues to join me in voting for senator reed's amendment tomorrow. we face critical decisions ahead. this measure has extraordinary merit. we must keep faith with those who serve and i hope that we will when we vote this week on the national defense authorization act. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor and i suggest -- i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order the senate stands in recess until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow. stands adjourned

>> the internet is not the answer at the moment. it's not the answer in the sense that it's not working currently. it's lending itself to undermining jobs. it's compounding the inequality of our economic lives. it's creating new massive monopolies that were unimaginable in the 19th or 20th century and it has created this economy in which we have all been all internet

users have been turned into products. you and i have been packaged up and we have become the product like a hitchcock movie. >> the g7 summit wrapped up in germany earlier today. president obama help the closing news conference before returning to washington. you can see the news conference tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span.

>> next to discussion on a recent "washington post" front-page story looking at how the clintons built their two -- 2 million-dollar global initiative on today's "washington journal." >> host: has promised david farenthold of the "washington post" reporter and a recent look at the clinton foundation results in repercussion how clinton built its 2 billion-dollar global charity. good morning. why take a look at the subject? >> guest: is something subject? >> guest: at something and then a whole lot. sent hillary clinton got into politics we were struck by how we saw two very contrasting images of the clinton foundation. before hillary clinton got into the running the second time people talk about the red cross that giant organization but did this great good an issue gotten into politics has been cast in a

totally different light. it wasn't really an issue at all. it was a clinton political operation that have operation that had the name foundation so we wanted to explain from the beginning what it was and what it wasn't and the weird hybrid it is not today. >> host: with that in mind what is said and what is it not in what is the hybrid? >> guest: it is a charitable foundation. the large wealthy charitable foundation and does a lot of good in the world. it channels a lot of money to a lot of great causes. the interesting thing about that is that it's not it couldn't create a built in a deliberate way. we are going to go into this area and this related area. jimmy carter everything related to similar topics. the clinton foundation are involved in -- things that they catch bill clinton's eye.

aids in africa. after he had a heart attack the child the city mission. the only thing they have in common with him. it was something he was interested in or some friend of his thought. also there were comes from the idea clinton is a convenient. he is not a philanthropist and that it gathers money and spend it. he is a billion dollars he can use in the clinton foundation as a conduit to get money to a cause they are interested in and as it goes by bill clinton gives his fees and the foundation has an apparatus to check to see whether what you're giving is working. so that's the charitable part of it. it has been along the way this involvement with the clinton political machine both bill clinton days a lot of them have jobs in the foundation and its hillary clinton prepares for second presidential run some of her aides and allies and compounds have been paid employees or consultants for the foundation as well so her political operation has been

intertwined with the foundation. >> host: what is the specific role of bill, hillary and chelsea clinton? >> they do not get paid. they are on the board of the foundation. hillary was but she no longer is. bill clinton gets paid a lot for his speeches and often he is paid to speak at donors of the foundation about the foundation's work rate he doesn't get a salary from the foundation. the foundation has enhanced his stature in the world and also indirectly but obviously brought him something. >> host: his speaking fee is paid directly to the foundation and in some cases -- >> guest: in some cases -- bill clinton agreed to show up for a lifetime achievement award to the appearance fee was $500,000 given to the foundation so in some cases if you want him to show up the money goes to the foundation and in some cases if

you want to speak about the charitable work he does in the world. >> host: you are hillary clinton. what are your most concerned about the foundation especially if she's running for president? >> guest: right now the thing she has to worry about his bill clinton set this thing up to be close to the wealthy and powerful. that was his purpose. that is a mix at work and it's so close to wealthy and powerful interests. he takes the money and it blesses their money as it goes by and gives it the prestige of the bill clinton family. now that hillary clinton wants to run for president again the same feature now looks like all those people that paid explicitly to be part of the clinton family effort now have a connection to somebody wants to be president of the united states. if she becomes president all these powerful interests and powerful companies say they gave to what is now the bill hillary and chelsea clinton foundation so there is no an explicit connection she could have firewall this off as my husband's foundation.

i'm not going to be involved in this work but she has chosen to intertwined itself in political affairs with that it in a way that makes it harder for her to say those huge donations of the clinton foundation at nothing to do with me. >> host: where their firewalls in place when she was secretary of state? >> guest: there was a lot of disclosure and the obama administration set limits on what kinds of people could give to the foundation. in practice that was an imperfect system because they foundation is broken up into entities and it appears some of those entities that of not follow the rules as well as the main foundation to rdf that was the arrangement when she was secretary of state. now that she is not secretary of state anymore those rules have changed. >> host: david farenthold is our guest looking at the clinton foundation and how it works. you can see it on line and here's the paper version. we want to ask questions about question to avert about the

foundation (202)748-8001 and republican seven 27748002. if you want to tweak your thoughts as c-span at facebook.com/c-span. how many foreign countries does the clinton foundation have a role in or at least a presence in? >> guest: where their work is they say 108. 195 countries in the world so they are in a lot of places around the world. a lot of the work is done by the clinton health active initiative which the lower the cost of aids drugs which has 1500 employees around the world and a lot of what they do is not only lower the cost drug companies provide lower cost drugs but also works to make sure that the countries they get those drugs find patients test people and get the drugs as efficiently as possible.

that is what the on the ground impact is that they claim 180 countries. host one of the foreign countries they foreign countries became a delight in the last couple of weeks to sweden especially donations to the foundation and the interest. >> guest: i don't know much about that to be honest. that is something somebody else handle. i don't know much about that. >> host: that's the process as well. just go as far i understand it has to do with the way they donate. there were rules on certain countries who donate. >> host: let's take some calls. john is up next for david farenthold from great falls montana. john you muir on our independents line. go ahead. cocoa your young guests mentioned the fact that what caught bill clinton's eye was foundations he wanted to get to and things he wanted to help and i can think of a lot of other things that caught his eye and i would like your guest comment on all the scandals of the clintons and even the guy that flew to an

island that pedophile guide and where there is smoke there is fire young man. i would like you to comment on that. thank you. >> guest: one of the few things i will say about the scandal part of bill clinton is the reason this foundation serves as a way for bill clinton to transform his public persona. when he leaves office obviously he is tarnished by the pardon scandal. he is looking and we talk in the story about how in 2001 after leaving office he is lost. his wife is in the senate and his daughter is away at stanford and then it oxburgh. stewing about the fact that he has bad press and when he left out -- office he is stuck at home watching tivo. he sat at home watching old movies and i think he was both alone and lost and didn't know his role in the world and also unhappy that he had gone out after being president for eight

years gone out on the slow know. if you look at the foundation the work he has done a lot of it has been hammering positioning himself in the world but i think if you look back at where he was in 2001 a prius now convening a global conference dedicated to him. all these wealthy and powerful coming to be with him and get money so they can be on stage with him. it's an amazing turnaround from where he was in 2001. >> host: chicago illinois and that you are up next, go ahead. >> caller: yeah hi. i have a comment and a question about the clintons. first off i think nobody really cares about how much money she has. most people are more concerned about what she can do for us. we are not really concerned about who she is working with first and all that dhe sounds like somebody who cares about our issues. income inequality, voting rights rights, you know trying to help

everyday blue-collar workers get ahead. that is all we care about. we understand the republicans are angry and they're the ones who are trying to restrict and make things difficult for working-class people and my question is why should anybody be talking about the republicans money? there are a lot of rich republicans out there and nobody is talking about their money. it seems like they are afraid of the clintons but i can tell you one thing. myself and my friends, we only care about what she can do for us and we think that she stands for the working-class everyday american. thank you. >> guest: it's an interesting question to make about hillary clinton and whether money matters. i certainly see your point that it matters what she cares about an not how much money she makes. it's different than the foundation. the clinton foundation is obviously a charitable foundation that doesn't pay hillary clinton but the question of hillary's association with

rich people on wall street and around the world, rich countries in a political context or something related to her wealth and a problem for her politically is going to be that we have already seen her casting herself as a champion of the middle class taking on date language you heard john edwards used in 2008. there are two americas. the rich have too much in the poor have too little. there's too much income inequality and i think both the association she has created the foundation and the connections he has made there and her own personal wealth will be used against her. it seems like an academic or in a political sense she understands the importance of pushing for the middle class biting income inequality but it's hardly an issue when this is the life she leads in these are the people as he associates with ray of. >> host: that she caught get called out with the association

and the money involved? >> guest: think about marco rubio and scott walker. jeb bush might do this as well but think of the general election. my dad grew up busing tables in the case of marco rubio. my father was a small-town preacher. i still ride my motorcycle, all those cultural associations with those guys will bring up when they run against hillary clinton in the general election. even if she has the right rhetoric she has no cultural touchstone in part because of these associations in part because she has basically been in public office. .. we have no they -- we have known about the clinton since they started here. a quick question and comment. as i understand, the foundation pays out less than 25% of the

money it takes in to charity. so if you donate one dollar, $.75 goes in and they are paying for meals and salaries in all that and $.25 or less goes to the actual charities. as far something else another caller said, you hang around with and how you make your money is important. there is a reason the any presidential election. just see what hillary has done since she got into public office. judge her from that. guest: the question about the way the foundation accounts for its money. there have been a lot of reports about that. there are two main organizations that rate charities. they look at their finances and decide whether they are giving enough to the causes they claim to focus on. something like 80 or 90% of their money actually goes to a charitable purpose.

it is confusing because it depends on whether you count travel pair a lot of what the clinton foundation uses is called the clinton global initiative, what i was discussing earlier. a giant convention in new york every year. produces a lot of the pledges and commitments they use the rest of the year. if you count that as a convention, it looks like they give a less fraction of their money to charitable work. if you counted as charitable work, it looks like a lot more. the foundation got an a out of a skill ago's to a plus. -- scale that goes to a+. host: does provide a way to measurably prove whether this foundation is having an effect? guest: the clinton foundation as i said earlier, if you give a bunch of money, $100 million part of my gift is giving money

to the clinton foundation to monitor that gift. they say all but a tiny fraction less than 10% of their commitments after know to be successful. that is their accounting for it, not my accounting. we did not go back and look at all of those hundreds of pledges. but if you listen to them, they say more than 90% are successful. host: is a normal for a foundation not to be funded by the people setting it up? guest: that is what is so interesting about this story. you think of a foundation, you think of andrew carnegie or any of these american philanthropist swear they matched money and gave it away. clinton has this interesting view he calls himself the convener. he takes rich people's money and wrangles it, packages that for war people. it has a much greater impact than his own personal wealth though that is pretty great. the downside is you are tied to the people whose money -- back

to come down in a couple of wasted one thing you're worried about is people whose money you convene might run out of money. clinton sat next to a interparty nest a millionaire. they go to africa together. they set up a $100 million fund funded by this guy. that is before the financial crisis. tom was is a lot of money and cannot spend $100 million. the thing they set up with him with his money helping small farmers and coffee farmers come all the sudden he can only afford to fund part of it. that is one downside and the other is what we are seeing lately. both in haiti and in other places, it turns out those people by associating with clinton, at these big conferences, they have made lucrative deals and those folks

have used the clinton foundation in a way that was not completely charitable. you could argue whether that is an unfortunate side effect or a fine side effect. that affects your view of the clinton foundation there that is the downside, you do not control whose money comes in. you do not control what they do with that. host: david fahrenthold talking about the clinton foundation. europe next, good morning. caller: i want to recap what the german said about the clinton foundation. i know he is trying to remain neutral. it seems to me going thing he can report is that the clinton foundation, a hybrid. however he said is not useful for political purposes. they're not getting paid off of it. they do not receive a paycheck. if bill clinton did not run the clinton foundation, he still

would see large checks. george bush, 30% in our own country, but he still receives large checks. it seems to me someone can run a capitalist company and they receive less questions about her husband who is an organization that takes from the wealthy and gives to the poor. the clintons have been around a long time and i think maybe if foxnews wants to focus on something, they can find it out there. to use a charity i have heard the number on fox news. 25%? you are saying they're giving more than 80 or 90% going directly to the work. can you answer this question for me -- do you find any quid pro

quo? that is what we have heard. clinton goes to people and promises them favors in order to get a donation to the clinton foundation, as if she cannot do it in a better way. i appreciate ringing on such a neutral guy, but you can let the cat out of a bag. there is nothing wrong with this program. thank you very much. guest: let's start with that question. we did not find any p or what we were doing in the story was not to look for that kind of thing in any particular donation third it was to tell the story of how it began any -- and got to where it is today p or my colleagues did a lot of other reporting about individual gifts and relationships through the clinton foundation. today we did not find it or included in the story, it was not really the purpose to dig that deeply into the relationship.

i do not think secretary clinton's is greater detractors or promise a secret quid pro quo. i know a lot of folks will be looking at that. it does not exist. to talk about the foundation and how we should think about it related to hillary clinton, to me the most important point is what i said earlier about the idea where there should have been or could have been a firewall between her and the foundation. if the foundation were purely bill clinton's, and there were be a second order of whether somebody give a big order to clinton's's foundation, he has his own global standing. it is operably easier for her to defend. the degree to which she hand her aides and ideas have been wrapped into this, after she is secretary of state she comes back to the foundation and starts a couple of initiatives that are primarily her ideas

about helping women around the world, small businesses. the degree to which she has wrapped her own people and ideas and identity in the foundation, not to say there is anything wrong with that but it will make it harder for her to say, there was nothing there. because she has chosen to be part of the foundation in a way she had not been before. host: one name that comes up is sidney blumenthal. guest: a long time clinton aide for a long time. after bill clinton left office, he had one point got a consulting job from the clinton foundation geared at that time, hillary clinton was secretary of state and sidney blumenthal was a reporter for the new york times, that channel intelligence from libya. libya was sort of chaotic and they were trying to figure out what to do there. he was sending these that channel television reports.

he was working for businessmen who had investments in libya hoping one particular group of people in one particular set of outcomes happen spare passing this intelligence to hillary clinton not an entirely new trolled server. it was an interesting view. you can see it in the mouth. a hacker found them. even though this guy is not in libya, does not know that much about libya as soon as that intelligence comes in, she passes that out to the main state. it raised questions about the degree to which cronies would have that kind of influence even though they do not have actual expertise. that person was employed by the clinton foundation briefly. host: amir, hello. caller: thank you for accepting my call. as we were warned 30 years ago tom a we must stand up against evil. as your guest is implying, the clinton foundation, the clintons

are evil. thank you. guest: i have gone from neutral observer downhill pretty quickly. it is important for us to talk about this foundation in as detailed a possible way. understand how it works because it will be a big deal in the next year. it is one of the most important things in her family's's life and her life. it certainly will be a campaign issue. the sooner we understand what it is and how it works, the better we will evaluate her. if we do strawmen, one that it is a red cross or an evil slush fund, we will not figure out how it works. host: texas, pat, go ahead. caller: i was wondering how much investigations you have done on similar foundations like the reagan foundation, carson foundations, they all do the

same thing here is what is so different from the clintons and how much does jeb bush -- benefited from obamacare? guest: the interesting comparison with past residential foundations, it is interesting but not that obstructive shared none of those, at least the most recent folks would run again for president. a lot of times, the foundation mainly focuses on the library. jimmy carter has done some work on habitat for humanity. that is what makes this an interesting story for us. there is a potential, this was created to be a permanent residency for bill clinton. it is seen by outsiders in a and you see the foundation trying to retool itself to be

the foundation of a future possible president. two totally said -- total sets of needs. no one is really looking hard at what our next president does and future presidents because it is totally different and a much more severe set of needs. greater demand for transparency. one transition into the other we have never seen that before. host: have there been discussions about how it should operate if hillary clinton becomes president of the united states question mark -- states? guest: yes. the fundraising has been great when hillary clinton is running for president. they made a lot of money. hillary clinton runs for and becomes resident, then you cannot have a sitting president taking donations from these equal. her role would have to diminish and the foundation itself would

have to change. he wanted to do things mainly overseas because he wanted to stay out of the way of domestic politics. a sitting president, where would you put something that it would not affect the domain of the president of the united states, that would be really hard. the last few years of the clinton foundation, the fundraising has been partly based on the idea that maybe hillary clinton will become president or become powerful again. if that does not happen where does this go? what is the endpoint and what does it take him? either way, the outcome of the election will change the foundation. host: washington, d.c. caller: i had a question and a brief comment. who were the top 10 donors to the foundation or to you the most interesting donors and what do they expect to gain from giving that money and rubbing elbows? my question or suggestion is i

wish they would also, and i like bill clinton and i think he is a nice guy. but i wish they would focus on 600,000 residents of our nation's capital who cannot vote according to the constitution for u.s. senate or the house of representatives. some of that money helping us people here in our own capital who are legally prohibited from casting the vote for office. we have no voice or our own government at all. also, how about a few more public toilets. their only two and the whole city of washington dc. that is my comment, my requests. guest: on d.c. voting rights, one thing that has not been done at all is political activism. they had not really done a political accent -- you just

have to find bill clinton. you can find bill clinton, shake his hand and talk to him, there is a chance that will happen. this foundation focuses on elephant poaching in africa, childhood obesity in america crop yields in rwanda, they are all over the place. it could be one of their causes. host: another question, if bill clinton decided he wanted to place her time in the white house -- guest: i do not know. because it is not a typical philanthropic organization and it is not like there is a giant sum of money, there is some money, it where you just headed off in that person could give the money away, he is the engine that makes it work, and you need him flying around the world giving speeches. it would not be there if he were the first gentleman.

i cannot imagine he would have the kind of freedom to do his own freelancing project. imagine the headaches that would create if the gentlemen were there shaking hands with all these people, all these heads of countries, which we have very nuanced relationships. host: roger, new hampshire. caller: the republicans are the ones that, because they're trying to do stuff hillary ended up having citizens united past, citizens united has allowed a lot of donors donors to be tax-free. to me, it is ridiculous. i would like to see transparency of all the donors, political organizations. that is my comment. guest: anyone wants to run including her will have to take

advantage of that system. no way she could win without disarming herself to her when she comes into the office, she would be crusading for fighting politics and probably be an north beneficiary of politics. you can see that now it is created, it would be hard to fix. host: new york, caps on, you're up next with our guest. caller: i would like to say, the democrats try to see what hillary will do for everybody. she is just lying the does the last time i saw her talking, it was the lady asking for a picture and said, you better get to the back of the line. back of the line. the rich ones in the front. for everyone to see what she said, that his state. she does not agree to talk to any reporters yes, everybody for

everywhere. [indiscernible] the rest of what is going on. thank you very much. thank you. good morning. guest: talking about hillary clinton's put glass durations. i wrote another story this morning about was interesting about hillary clinton in iowa in 2008 and why she did not catch on and what caused her political demise back then. it will be interesting to see, aside from the foundation whether hillary clinton do what obama did last time around, which is not just inspire people to respect her but actually make people feel like they're being swept along in something greater than themselves. part of that will be cultural identifications. people will feel like hillary clinton is like them or understands them in some way. given the life she has led to the success of herself and her husband, she is coming from a

different place. host: you wrote a line in your piece. the clinton's charitable causes for aids and allies and indirectly for the clintons themselves, for the a's and allies. we talked about sidney blumenthal. guest: the state department was paid a second salary by the clinton foundation. was paid consulting between the state department and hillary running for president. there have been other fundraisers and it worked for hillary clinton and also the foundation. that is just her aides and allies. look back at bill clinton. the top person at the white house runs in a's drug initiative. there been other folks, the body man in the white house, is sort of one of the top people in the foundation for a long time, who sort of came up with the idea for the clinton global

initiative. a lot of infrastructure from the clinton foundation was carried over from the white house. you can see a lot of the same infighting for bills time that you saw in the white house among people. host: do businessmen benefit from that especially from their associations through the foundation? guest: of course. frank, a canadian mining tycoon who has funded a lot of clinton's's work at the foundation especially helping countries through mining is prevalent. met the president of a couple of different countries. met two countries who later signed a lucrative uranium mining deals. not only does your name get to be on the gift, but you often physically go with him to these

countries to inspect what you have done or set up a deal. often folks who have come along with clinton have made lucrative deals with the heads of state. host: tony is up next. caller: good morning. everyone knows bill clinton is an economic genius. he balanced the national budget. left george bush with a surplus that he squandered. the comment i really want to make is everybody is trying to make this a campaign issue for hillary. she went for the democratic nomination, but she is not here there are a lot of democrats that feel like me. they are just -- they just really do not trust hillary. i am looking at some other candidates. bill clinton is going to make money, but talking like she is an automatic nominee, i do not think that is the case.

that is my question or comment. thank you for your time. guest: it is interesting you say that. the folks with hillary clinton bernie sanders and martin o'malley, no one are taking them seriously as challengers but that could change. the perception a lot of folks have of the clintons, even folks who are democrats see the clintons as ending the rules. just the idea if they remember the first clinton presidency that you have to spend a lot of your time defending the clintons in these ways were it is not really cut and dry what they did, that kind of frustration are we about to go into another time of what is the meaning of this and me defending the clintons, if i am a democrat, i think that weighs on people. if the foundation creates that kind of fatigue, it can hurt hillary clinton the primary or later on. host: can all those phone or

debt foreign donors make direct touch visions in their own country? guest: that is the genius of the foundation. at the clinton global initiative they are in front of angelina jolie and bill gates and bono. you get to ponds age and be honored with bill clinton. if you just give money to some cause somewhere else, you do not get that prestige, you do not get to have your name on something with bill clinton. that is powerful even for people who are incredibly wealthy. the mexican telecom billionaire, one of the richest men in the world, it would not seem like he needed extra prestige or gravitas, but that is someone who has gravitated to bill clinton. he is to go to bill clinton's speeches, right down lists of top 10 orders around the world even people like that see a benefit associated with bill clinton on stage. that is the genius of the clinton foundation. to get a piece of clinton

prestige, they get -- host: what about nonprofits? do they get the same access? guest: if you want to sponsor the foundation, $250,000. if you just want a ticket for your company it can be twice thousand dollars per ticket. but they have a way for nonprofits, to get in for reduced rates or for free. they are there also, but obviously the whole thing is set up, it is a big moneymaker for the clinton foundation because these companies want to be there. host: jane, columbus, ohio, thank you for holding on. you are up next here good morning. are you there? caller: yes. i have a statement. i think it is great people are donating money to the clinton

foundation where they go and help other people. you have to have rich people donate. poor people will not be able to donate the kind of money they need but when it comes to the presidency, nobody talks about how much money it takes to put a man or a woman into the presidency. guest: i think that is right. you need a lot of money to become president. that is sort of a different side of hillary clinton. she will need a lot of money and a lot of political donations if she will make a successful run for president. i do not want people to get the idea of a mingle with the foundation. the foundation is a separate entity. it is not a part of the presidency to those things are separate.

they are not the same thing. host: there is a listing of all the various arms of the clinton foundation, a good deal of them starting -- does it only -- only go to clinton foundation programs, or does it donate to other charities outside the clinton foundation? guest: it makes grants to other charities but a lot of them are funneled.a healthier generation come after clinton had emergency heart surgery, she partnered with the american heart association, that is a huge program trying to get -- in schools, which employs hundreds of people in schools around the country, that of its own thing. it is kind of broken off into its own thing. host: james in houston, texas, you're on. go ahead. caller: is that me?

i'm sorry. my comment was, i was just wondering when they come out of office when he was president hillary was complaining they were just totally broke and like he was going to have to get in line for food. how come none of this ever comes up when she is getting ready to run for president and telling all these lies? i do not understand how that works? host: go ahead. guest: that was something she said early in the preparations for the presidential run. at that time, there was a lot of fun raising requirements for the presidential library in arkansas. the comment i think she said was not flat broke in the way regular people understand flat

broke. obviously, if you look now, the change in their network has been just incredible. part of that is due to any president, as an earlier caller said, can make a lot of money giving speeches. but there is an extra -- that is the great thing about the clinton foundation, as she blesses the money, the my also blesses him. he gets to be a greater global figure and become more demand run the world, the more he convenes the money. host: are there programs the clinton foundation decided to stop, because of lack of interest? guest: one major program. it helped get the clinton foundation its start. clinton's moves from the base of operations in arkansas where they were building the library to new york, where hillary was a senator. she says i am a small business

woman, i want to get better, but i do not know how to get better. he set up a whole mentoring program to show small businesses to understand things like marketing, websites. it expands to nine cities. we talked to a lot of people who are really involved in this and thought it was a great program. it and. it is not scalable. it is too much work per person to go around the world to it with the clinton foundation likes to do, it is mostly about bringing in money as found was people in that program found it to be, it was not scalable. it is one major initiative they shut down. host: david fahrenthold suspended.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: madam president i note with some interest over the weekend russia wields aid in ideology against west to fight sanctions on the front page of the "new york times". warring ukraine that has pitted russia against the west is being raised -- waged not just with tanks, artillery and troops. the front page of the new york times in russia against the west is being raised not just with tanks and artillery and troops increasingly moscow has brought to bear different kinds of weapons according to european

officials. money, ideology and information. yesterday and today in "the wall street journal," iraq iraqi's call for a deeper overhaul of army mistrust of military leadership among troops that is widespread and crisis of confidence. airstrikes killed dozens and there is fighting in human intensifying and reporting of a world in turmoil described by and to top it all off today the president of the united states speaking to reporters at the g7 summit in germany president obama said ann that quote we don't yet have a complete

strategy about how to combat devices i would remind my colleagues that on august 28 2008 my friends nearly a year after the president said we don't have a strategy yet to fight isis in iraq and syria we said again we don't yet have a complete strategy about how to combat isis. i would like to see the incomplete strategy. i would like to see something. i would like to see -- i would not like to see it

because we don't have air comptrollers on the ground. what is this administration going to figure out that if you want to destroy the enemy you have to be able to identify the enemy that requires putting air control on the ground and that means u.s. troops. i know that whenever i and some others say that we need additional u.s. troops, people recoil. here we go again. well, what's going on now, what's going on now is isis is succeeding. bashar assad is hanging on. iran is on the move. they now dominate for countries, syria, iraq yemen, lebanon and the president of the united states says we don't yet have a complete strategy. while the pentagon is a pretty big place. there are hundreds of people that work for the national security adviser and somehow

nearly a year later we don't yet have a strategy? and while isis goes from house to house in ramadi with lists of names and they execute people and they killed 3-year-old children and they burn their bodies in the streets, and the atrocities in syria continue as bashar al-assad barrel bombs innocent men, women and children, barrel bombs by the way supplied by iran and russia and we don't yet have a "that complete strategy. well mr. president i have never seen the world in more crises nor has henry kissinger nor have most other longtime observers of our nation and the world.

i have heard -- i urge my colleagues to take a look at the middle east on january of 2009 when president obama was sworn in as president of the united states and look at that map that same map today in color and where there is isis, where it is iranian domination, where there is conflict and where there is a complete lack of accepting the state of israel and democratization for the kinds of freedoms that the united states of america is spore. so all i can say is one can wonder, one has to wonder whether this president just want wants to wait out the next year and a half and basically do nothing to stop this genocide bloodletting horrible things that are happening throughout the middle east who in the view

of the director of the federal bureau of investigation and the director of the cia say as far as isis is concerned pose a threat to the security of the united states. why did they say that. [inaudible question] basically because thousands of young men who have gone to syria and iraq are being radicalized and trained are going to go back to where they came from. everyone knows that. when baghdadi the leader of the isis left the camp where he spent four years along with 25,000 others in the day he left he said to the americans, we will see you in new york. mr. baghdadi is not known for his sense of humor. so what we are trying to do in this legislation that is before the senate is to provide the means, the training, the equipment to care for the men and women, much-needed reforms that i have been over and will

continue to go for whether it be retirement, whether it be acquisition or a number of other areas of the department of defense and the way we defend this nation that in my view are long long overdue. and now we see the president of the united states threatening to veto this legislation if it gets through the house and the senate over the issue of oh and as my colleagues know overseas contingency operations which began with the conflicts in iraq iraq, and asked -- afghanistan and iraq as a means of providing additional funds to pay for and fund the operations in those countries as the name implies overseas contingency operations. i have oppose sequestration. i think it's a terrible thing to inflict on the men and women who

are serving in the military much less our national security. i agree with our uniformed leaders every one of them has testified in the armed services committee that continued sequestration puts the lives of the men and women serving in the military at greater risk. i don't know of a greater obligation than me have been to prevent the lives of young men and women who have volunteered to serve this country and greater risk but that has been lost on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle so now we have a occo but it funds the defense of this country at the levels that the president requested and i don't like it. i don't like it because it only gives one year planning. what the military really needs is to be able to plan for at least five years ahead of time. we can't build new weapons and new ships and airplanes on a year-to-year basis, but it is

better than sequestration which as i said to this nation's security. so last week white house issued a statement of administration policy threatening to veto this national security legislation. it hardly comes as a surprise. after all president has threatened to veto for some reason or another every defense bill since 2011. the white house is compilation of complaints as long but it's locally short on substance. the statement of administration policy makes clear that the true basis of the administration's veto threat has nothing to do with defense. objecting to the use of 38b and contingency operation funds or oco to meet the presidents request of $612 million the president quote will not face defense without facing non-defense spending. it's incomprehensible that as

america confronts the most complex array of crises around the world since the end of world war ii that the president of the united states who has not yet been able to come up with a quote complete strategy for the challenges that we make that the president would veto funding for military to prove a political point. the threats we confront today are far more serious than they were a year ago in significantly more so when the congress passed the budget control act of 2011. that legislation arbitrarily cap defense spending and establish the mindless mechanism of sequestration which was triggered in 2013. as a result of worldwide threats rising rates of nation are in a course to cut nearly $1 trillion in defense spending over 10 years. every single military and national security leader who has

testified before the armed services committee this year has denounced sequestration and urged its repeal as soon as possible. this legislation doesn't and sequestration. unfortunately believe me our committee would have done so if the ndaa were capable but it's not. the ndaa is a policy bill. this legislation is a policy bill. it is the appropriators to deal with the money. only deals with the issues and it doesn't spend a dollar. it provides the department of defense the men and women in uniform at the authority to support and defend the nation. it fully supports president obama's budget request of $612 billion for national defense which is $38 billion above the spending established by the budget control act. let me repeat that. the legislation gives the president every dollar of budget authority requested.

the difference is this legislation follows the senate budget resolution. the senate budget resolution which was voted on time after time all night long and was agreed to by both houses of congress. it is the senate budget resolution. now this is not my preferred option as i said. that's why the committee included a special transfer authority in this legislation that allows the department of defense to transfer the additional 38 billion from oco to the a's budget in the event that legislation is enacted that increases the statutory limits on discretionary defense and non-defense spending and proportionately equal amounts. this was the product of a bipartisan compromise and it was the most we could do in the defense authorization bill to recognize for a broader fiscal agreement without denying funding for a military right now now.

on the floor we have heard a number of misconceptions about oco funding many of which have been fed by the supposed rations rhetoric. oco is not the ideal way to to fund our national defense. technical and budgetary consequences to using oco funding have been greatly exaggerated. oco software zone and will basis just like base funding. oh funding is allocated to the same dod accounts as base funding. in fact the defense bill purposefully placed additional 38 billion of oco funding in the same account in which the president himself requested the money. these activities have historically have a large share of oco funding in the account is designated as the president. there are no laws that make oco funding any different than base funding. the white house threatened to

veto this legislation and the desire for increases in non-defense spending is misguided and irresponsible. with global threats rising and makes no sense to oppose the defense policy bill. legislation that spends no money but is full of vital authorities that our troops need for a reason that has nothing to do with national defense spending. the ndaa should not be treated as a hostage with regards to negotiation. the political reality is that the budget control act which the president signed remains the law of the land. so faced with a choice between oco money and no money i'd choose oco and multiple senior military leaders testified before the armed services committee this year that they would make the same choice for one simple reason. this is $38 billion of real money that are military desperately needs and without

which our top military leaders have said they cannot succeed. the bottom line is this. ndaa operates a $612 billion in national defense. this is the amount requested by the president justified by his national security strategy. if the president some of my colleagues opposed the defense bill over non-defense spending i suspect they will have a difficult time explaining and justifying that choice to americans who increasingly cite national security is a top concern. the statement of administration policy raises concerns with a sweeping defense acquisition reforms in india aa. for example the white house asserted transferring some acquisition authority back to the services is somehow inconsistent with the secretary of defense's exercise of authority direction and control over all of the department of defense's programs and activities.

i could not agree more with that assertion. legislation -- legislation does a switch who does what insert and circumstances from different people who are directly reported serb under the authority and direction and control of the secretary of defense. this legislation for a limited number programs starting with the secretary of defense will look to the circus cemeteries for management of these acquisition programs rather than looking at the undersecretary of defense for acquisition technology and logistics. this is not usurpation of the secretary of defense is power. called streamlining of authorities in reducing layers of unnecessary bureaucracy. there's a section in the legislation that will allow the secretary of defense to continue to rely on more layers of management if he chooses but only if he certifies to congress that this makes sense. there simply is not any undermining of the secretary of the secretary of defense's

authority in here. another concerned rain this minute the transfer of milestone authority reduces the secretary of defense is ability to guard against unwarranted optimism and program planning and budget formulation. unwarranted optimism is indeed a plague on the opposition. it's not the monopoly. nothing in this bill overrides the requirement from the office across the assessment program evaluation. in fact new incentives imposed on the services in this legislation are designed to put some of this optimism and check. some in the white house and department of defense wants to perpetuate the conviction that the current system is working even after wave of 25 program cancellations by former secretary gates all of the programs left under management

have over $200 billion in cost overruns. i want to repeat that. under the supervision undersecretary of defense acquisition technology and logistics, there are programs that have over $200 billion in cost overruns. html is trying to have it both ways claiming credit for the improvements in acquisition system while blaming the system for its long list of failures. this is exactly the program this legislation is trying to address address. blurred lines of accountability and cite the defense acquisition system that allows leaders to evade responsibility for results. the reality is in the modern world html management process takes too long and takes too low low -- cost to much. an army study looked at the time it would take to go through all the at&l reviews.

i repeat go through all the reviews and buy nothing. what was the answer? 10 years. 10 years to buy nothing. the government accountability office looked at the much wanted milestone reviews at the office of the secretary of defense touting as a success. just one review takes on average two years. a similar review with the missile defense agency takes three months. our adversaries are building weapons systems. it's time for us to do the same. i find it disappointing and outright laughable the statement of administration policy expressed concern about the armed services committee decision to downsize and streamlined the bureaucratic overhead at the pentagon while at the same time complaining we are not letting them downsize the fighting forces. let me repeat. the administration wants to keep more pentagon bureaucrats while

drawing down our forces in cutting military equipment like fighter aircraft. is there any member of this chamber that believes we should increase the army staff by 60% over decades and then turn around and/army brigade combat teams from 45 to 32? of course not. the administration sites reductions have taken place in headquarters activities but ignores the fact that the air force is trying to achieve those reductions by playing a shell game creating two new organizations and shifting people around. moving the deck chairs on the titanic didn't keep the ship from sinking and shifting people around in a game of hide the headquarters staff will not keep our national security from sinking under the weight of bureaucratic empires. as the white house asked the senate to preserve staff the statement of administration policy laments the committee's activities to address shortfalls across the services.

deliveries of the f-35 have continued to fall short of projections. the air force has continued to train combat power through senior air force officials have repeatedly testified to the alarming reality that their service is the smallest in its history with readiness at low levels all the while or airmen perform ongoing combat operations in the middle east theater support packages and eastern europe reassurance that to our allies in asia-pacific and maintaining a strong strategic nuclear deterrence. the misallocation of airpower resources over the past six years coupled with the mismanagement of very expensive aircraft weapon systems. kermit programs places america's national security interests in jeopardy and endangers the lives of our men and women in uniform. our military commanders know this is true. that's why for example the chief of naval operations in the

commandant of the main core included in their unfunded priorities list requests for 12 f-18 super hornet for the navy and six at f-35 joint strike fighters for the marine corps. the ndda -- strike fighter shortfalls in maritime services to the unanticipated increased combat operations in the middle east aging in obsolete fighter aircraft in significant delays in the f-35 joint strike fighter delivery. bizarrely the white house has apparently disregarded that testimony and instead -- the request for combat power for military commanders quote unnecessary. the statement of administrative administration policy opposes a strong oversight measure put in place by the ndaa three the

administration objects to provision in this legislation that reduces the cost cap for the uss john f. kennedy by $100 million but in the budget request the navy estimated the cost at 11.348. in other words, the bill provides a buffer of $50 million $50 million. the provision simply locks and the savings the department has advertise which comes after more than $2 billion in cost $2 billion in cost growth of one aircraft carrier. unless the budget request is misleading or inaccurate this provision should not result in a breach of the cost cap as the administration claims. the administration doesn't recognize the importance of conducting trials on the ss ford

ford. with the abundance of new technology including that catapulted resting rehearsal is reliance on electricity power to key systems that continues to be a great deal of risk in this program. testing it will not only improve the design of future carriers or reduce the costs associated with retrofitting engineering changes. absent this provision provision than a free vote delayed by up to seven years shock trials. that poses a risk that it will apply and fight without this testing putting the lives of our sailors at risk. the statement of demonstration policy also raises objections to a number of provisions related to military personnel. for instance the administration the month the fact that the committee did not adopt a plan to raise existing tri-care fees and implement new fees for medicare eligible retirees and

their family members. the so-called consolidated health plan would not have created the modern base to the health care system and the administration made no attempt at all to improve access to care care, quality of care beneficiary satisfaction. ndaa on the other hand addresses those issues and more without raising enrollment fees or creating new fees. the white house expressed concerned about provisions in any ndaa a call for a plan to privatize commissaries and a two-year pilot program had no more than two commissaries to assess the feasibility and advisability of the plan. the rationale is confusing. the claims that quote is an independent study underway to determine whether privatization is a peaceful option and we should wait for those results prior to making any policy changes. the bill did require comprehensive review in fiscal

year 15 minute independent organization of men pricing options of the commissary system but in that section there was no requirement to study the feasibility of privatization of the commissary system. it's also curious that the administration wants against implementing a pilot program on privatization but for the results of an independent study while at the same time encouraging the congress to adopt their own pilot program. the white house policy statement despite the advice of nearly a every state policy expert that appear before the armed services committee in recent months henrik kissinger george shultz met him upright brzezinski and others against the advice of both the secretary of state the secretary of defense the president has refused to provide assistance to ukraine. the president continued inaction for fear provoking russia is

seen by putin as weakness and bite the aggression we seek to avoid. the ukrainian people aren't asking for u.s. troops. they are simply asking for the right tools to defend themselves and their country and those are the tools that this legislation would provide.

this week on "the communicators" and author we interviewed at richard matt las vegas talks about the impact of internet on society. we also took a look at some of the new technology on display. ces international is the largest consumer technology show in the world. >> host: joining us on "the communicators" is andrew keen whose most recent book is called