after the september 11 attacks and is used to fund military operations related to the global war on terrorism. a number of other amendments also a weight votes. live coverage of the senator on c-span2. the president pro tempore: today's opening prayer will be offered by guest chaplain rabbi harold kravitz from minnetonka minnesota. the guest chaplain:god of all that is good, it is a privilege to be inside this capitol building, richly designed to inspire those who govern to achieve the loftiest goals possible for this nation.

guide the senators who sit in this chamber to do what the book of deuteronomy describes as "that which is right and good in the sight of the eternal one..." we pray for all americans especially those who lack sufficient food to feed themselves or their families. this body has the power to change this reality, to do "that which is right and good•" may the one who provides sustenance for all - hazan et hakol- bless this united states senate with the wisdom and compassion to act on its responsibilities to those who are vulnerable and in need.

may all god's people in this land be able to live with dignity and share in the plenty with which this nation is blessed. 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. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i will yield to the senator from minnesota. the presiding officer: the

senator from minnesota. mr. franken: thank you. and thank you leader reid. i rise today to thank rabbi harold kravitz for offering the opening prayer today in the senate and to praise him for all of his excellent work. rabbi kravitz is rabbi at adath jeshurun congregation in my state of minnesota an important leader in our state. in addition to serving his congregation rabbi kravitz is also leader in the fight against hunger. he is outgoing chair of the board of mazonne the jewish response to hunger, where he has been working to end hunger for all people regardless of their faith background. and one of the things that is most notable about rabbi kravitz is his commitment to bringing together people of all faiths to end hunger especially i want to

recognize rabbi kravitz's work in minnesota to make school lunches free and available for all children. no child should ever go hungry. and we know that all -- we know that kids won't do well in school when they're hungry. and also it's just wrong. that's why i've taken the issue up at the federal level as well to try to make this commonsense policy that the rabbi has championed in mazonne as widespread as possible. rabbi kravitz has done excellent work in minnesota and as a national leader in the fight against hunger. thank you for that, rabbi and thank you again for offering the opening prayer this morning.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president sometimes the divide between the white house and reality can be stark. that was evident yesterday when president obama told us that obamacare was -- quote -- "working" and that essentially -- quote -- "none none of the law's failures and broken promises had come to pass." i now imagine the families threatened with double-digit premium increases would beg to differ as would the millions of families who received cancellation notices for the plans they had and that they wanted to keep. that's especially true considering something else the president said, that obamacare -- quote -- "hasn't had an adverse effect on people who already had health insurance." that's what the president said.

that obamacare hasn't had an adverse effect on people who already had health insurance. president obama actually said that. it may bordered on the absurd, but he did say it. perhaps the president will make even more bizarre claims today as he tries to bolster the image of a law only 11% of americans say is a success. mr. president, only 11% of americans say that obamacare is a success. perhaps he'll keep relates facing the middle class -- realties facing the middle class in mind. instead of jousting with reality perhaps he'll address the concerns of quints -- constituents who write in every day who tell them how the law is hurting them. maybe he'll address the kentuckian who wrote to tell me this: "i cried myself to sleep." i cried myself to sleep said this kentuckian who wrote me

about this law. that's how she felt after losing health coverage with her employer and then being forced -- forced -- into an exchange plan she called subpar with a nearly $5,000 deductible. now, how helpful to most middle-class people is a health insurance policy with a $5,000 deductible? she said "i work hard for every penny i earn, and this is completely unacceptable." it's also another example of a law that's failed. and the sooner president obama can come to grips with that reality, the sooner we can work together to replace the fear and anguish of obamacare with the hope and promise of true health care reform. now, mr. president on an entirely different matter, the defense authorization legislation before the senate would authorize the programs and funding that provide the kind of training and equipment our military needs in the face of

aggressive -- aggressive -- threats like isil. pro provide a well-deserved pay raise to the brave men and women who give us everything to keep us safe. and it contains exactly the same level of funding exactly the same level of funding that president obama requested in his own budget. $612 billion. it's just the kind of legislation you'd expect to receive strong bipartisan support. up until now it has. the ndaa is a bill we typically consider every year and it's one that typically passes with bipartisan support. this year's house bill passed with votes from both parties while the senate version of the bill passed the armed services committee by a huge bipartisan margin of 22-4. that's in the senate armed services committee the vote on the bill that we have before us. it should be sailing through the senate to passage by a similar margin this week. but some in the democratic

leadership are now trying to hold it hostage for partisan reasons. we live in an age when as henry kissinger recently put it, the united states has not faced a more diverse and complex array of crises since the end of the second world war. and yet some democratic leaders seem to think that this is the moment, this is the moment to hold our national security hostage to the partisan demands for more spending on washington bureaucracies, like the i.r.s. they seem to think it's okay to hold our troops and their families to ransom if they can't plus up unrelated bills like the one that funds their own congressional offices. the armed services committee chairman just penned an op-ed on the issue that i would ask my colleagues to read. it made many important points, including this one: there is a bipartisan consensus that we cannot continue to hold defense funding at b.c.a. levels after years of dangerous cuts.

military officials have told us that to do so could put american lives at risk, which means it's a scenario we should be working to avoid at all costs. but some democratic leaders seem to view such a worrying scenario as little more than leverage to extract more spending for unrelated bureaucracies. it's the first duty of the federal government to protect the nation. senator mccain wrote in his piece. and with global threats rising, it simply makes no sense -- no sense -- to oppose a defense policy full of vital authorities that our troops need. and for a reason, he said, that has nothing to do with national defense spending. he's right. and i'd ask that his op-ed be included in the record at the conclusion of my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: here's what i'm asking today. i'm asking every sensible democratic colleague to keep on

side with the american people and pull these party leaders back from the edge. i'm asking my friends across the aisle to join us to support wounded warriors instead of more partisan brinkmanship, to give our troops a raise instead of giving gridlock a boost. and i'm asking them to work with us to defeat the contingency funding amendment offered by the senior senator from rhode island so that we can keep this bill intact and consistent with the budget resolution. the new congress has been on a roll in recent months, getting things done for the american people in a spirit of greater openness and cooperation. let's keep the momentum going. let's keep that spirit alive. if you have amendments, i'd encourage you to work with senator mccain to get them processed. but above all let's ignore the partisan voices of the past and work together for more shared achievements instead. i think our troops and their

families deserve no less. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: the majority leader can't seem to let the facts as they exist get in the way of his ideology. the facts are the affordable care act is working. 16.5 million people are proof of that because they have access to health care, most of them who did not have it before. in the light of day it's shown that private insurance companies were taking advantage of the american people. they can't do that now under the affordable care act. companies are proposing these huge rate increases simply won't get them. and, mr. president understand

80% of every dollar that's charged by an insurance company of premiums, 80% of it has to go toward caring for people. if it doesn't, there are rebates, and hundreds of thousands of americans during the last few years have gotten rebates as a result of insurance companies not spending 80% of the money that they get in premiums for health care. mr. president, the sad commentary is that insurance companies took advantage. they took advantage by not insuring the people who had preexisting disabilities, and these are people who had some of the disabilities they said were preexisting was the fact that you are a woman. some insurance companies charge more for the same care if you are a woman and not a man. we have wide-ranging evidence there was some existence before, and i guess my republican

colleagues want back again where insurance companies determined how much -- they could arbitrarily cut off insurance to someone. they had these arbitrary limits. can't do that anymore. for senior citizens, they have received millions and millions of benefits from the affordable care act. they get a wellness check every year for no cost at all. they no longer have to worry about the hole in the doughnut, so to speak as we call it on coverage for their prescriptions. so there are many, many things we could talk about. the fact is the affordable care act is working and we're going to continue to defend it as the american people want us to do. this afternoon the senate will vote on an important amendment offered by a graduate of the united states military academy at west point, the senator from rhode island, jack reed, also the ranking member of the armed

services committee. i commend senator reed for the stellar job he's done in being the manager of this bill. he's one of the most thoughtful and responsible members of the senate and always has been. he's -- he has great legislative experience, having served in the house before he came here. senator reed's amendment addresses a major threat to our national security and the middle class -- sequestration. sequestration refers to deep, mindless automatic cuts throughout the government. these cuts were authorized four years ago to force congress to reduce the deficit in a balanced way. unfortunately, they didn't work. republicans were unwilling to close even a single tax loophole loophole -- not a single tax loophole to reduce the deficit. now we face the prospect of arbitrary and unreasonable cuts that were once assumed to be so stupid congress wouldn't allow them to happen, but now everyone -- something everyone thought was stupid is now official republican policy.

unless we can reach a bipartisan agreement to fix sequestration these cuts will occur. not smoothly but as if done by a meat cleaver. that threatens not only our military security but the economic security of america's middle class which really is our national security. the bill aims to avoid sequestration for the defense department with widely ridiculed budget loopholes which would put extra defense spending on the nation's credit card, increasing our deficit and our debt. mr. president, i am stunned by my friend, the senior senator from arizona. when i was an appropriator, i was on this senate floor and i watched him with the staff in the back room every time we did an appropriation bill. he poured through line by line with his staff every appropriation bill. if there was something he thought was askew he would object to it. we got used to that because

frankly, it saved money over time. and as he referred to all the pork that was in these bills he and i disagreed on what was determined to be pork, but i understand where he was coming from. mr. president, i am just flabbergasted now that the senior senator from arizona the chairman of the armed services committee, is agreeing to a one-time gimmick, and all the experts have said these gimmicks don't work but especially this one. now the committee led by my friend the senior senator from arizona, is agreeing to this gimmick. think of that. republicans led by the senior senator from arizona are advocating deficit spending big time. not a little bit. big time. tens of billions of dollars. our troops deserve better than this. meanwhile, unless we deal with the impact of sequestration more broadly, middle-class america will suffer drastic cuts in

things that matter to them the most. cuts in priorities like education, job creation, life-saving research. sequestration nondefense programs is also an attack on military families. for example sequestration threats -- threatens to cut v.a. spending, health care spending for military, job training for returning veterans, schools that teach children in military families and heating assistance for veterans who are struggling. we're going to be fair to military families just as millions of other working americans, we need to fix sequestration for more than just the pentagon. we need to fix it for defense and nondefense programs jointly. defense and nondefense are certainly things we cannot separate. that's what the reed amendment is designed to achieve through bipartisan negotiations. there's no reason to wait to do a negotiated bipartisan budget, and it makes no sense to start spending extra money on defense or anything else until we agree

on an overall plan. put simply, we ought to budget first, spend later. that's the only responsible way for a family or a nation to conduct its business. that's why the reed amendment makes so much sense. i urge my colleagues to support the reed amendment a plan that avoids unnecessary cuts in areas like education job creation and research. that's what the reed amendment is all about. a plan that funds all agencies that protect our security, including the f.b.i., department of homeland security, drug enforcement administration. all these vital programs. a plan that funds our troops, takes care of military families, makes the long-term investments needed to ensure a secure and prosperous future for all americans. less than two years ago democrat patty murray and republican paul ryan proved that could be done. let's put an end to the games and gimmicks and start putting together a responsible budget. mr. president, i see my friend on the floor. would the chair announce the business of the day? the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership

timed is -- 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, with the time equally divided, the majority controlling the first half and the democrats controlling the final half. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president last fall republicans promised that if we were elected to the majority of the senate, we would get the senate working again. and a big part of that is getting the appropriation process working again. when the senate is functioning properly, 12 separate appropriation bills are considered individually, and the appropriation -- in the appropriation committee and then brought to the senate floor for debate and amendment. this process is designed to allow senators to carefully examine programs and consider the best and most responsible way to distribute funding. but the appropriation process hasn't worked that way for a while. too often over the past few years, the majority of the year's appropriation bills have been thrown together into one

catch-all funding bill, greatly reducing senators' ability to take a hard look at spending and to ensure that funds are being allocated responsibly. mr. president, republicans are determined to change that. we started the appropriation process by passing a balanced budget resolution for the first time in over ten years. this week, we continue the process with the national defense authorization act which authorizes funding for our nation's defense and our men and women in uniform. this authorization bill is the first step in the appropriation process for defense funding under what we call regular order. this legislation accomplishes a number of important things. it authorizes funding for our military at the president requested level of $612 billion. it also eliminates waste and inefficiency. specifically the bill targets $10 billion in wasteful and unnecessary spending and redirects those funds to military priorities like funding for aircraft weapons systems and

modernization of navy vessels. the bill also focuses heavily on reform. the military's current process for acquiring new equipment technologies is inefficient and bureaucratic. it wastes our nation's resources and even more importantly it reduces our military readiness by delaying the acquisition of essential weapons equipment and technology. the national defense authorization act introduces broad reforms to modernize and streamline the acquisition's process, which will significantly improve the military's ability to access technology and equipment when it needs it. the act also implements a number of reforms to the pentagon's administrative functions. over the past few years army headquarters staff have increased while combat personnel have been cut. army headquarters staff increased 60% over the past decade, yet the army is currently cutting brigade combat teams. from 2001-2012 the department of defense's civilian work force

grew at five times the rate of active duty military. priorityizing bureaucracy at the expense of our preparedness in our active duty military is not an acceptable use of resources. the defense authorization bill that we're considering changes the emphasis at the department of defense from administration to operations, which will help ensure that our military personnel receive the training they need and that our military is ready to meet any threats that arise. finally, mr. president this bill overhauls our military retirement system. the current military retirement system limits retirement benefits to soldiers who serve for 20 years or more, which eliminates 83% of those who have served including many veterans of the wars in iraq and afghanistan. the national defense authorization act replaces this system with a modern retirement system that would extend retirement benefits to 75% of our service members. mr. president, the bill before

us today is a strong bill. it's the product of bipartisan -- a bipartisan effort. it authorizes funding for our troops at the level requested by the president and provides key reforms that will strengthen our nation's defense and improve training benefits and quality of life for our service members. supporting this legislation should be a no-brainer. incredibly however, the president has threatened to veto this important legislation. his reason -- the president doesn't want our military to receive the increased levels of funding prescribed in this bill unless unless the president's nondefense funding priorities receive an increased level of funding. that's right mr. president. apparently, president obama is willing to hold up funding for our nation's military until congress provides more funding for agencies like the i.r.s. and the e.p.a.

while the president can certainly make his case to congress when it comes to funding government agencies, holding troop funding hostage for political purposes is reckless and irresponsible and if that weren't enough, the white house is busy lobbying senate democrats to abandon bipartisan efforts that went into this bill and back up a presidential veto. mr. president, the national defense authorization act plays a key role in keeping our nation safe. the president's attempt to hijack this bill for his political purposes is wrong and i very much hope that he will consider the implications of what he's doing and rethink that threat. mr. president, before i close i want to take just a few minutes to discuss the president's health care law. the president made some comments yesterday on the up coming supreme court -- upcoming supreme court obamacare decision. referring to his health care law, the president said, and i quote -- "what's more, the

thing's working. part of what's bizarre about this whole thing is that we haven't had a lot of conversations about the horrors of obamacare because it hasn't come to pass." end quote. that was from the president yesterday. let me just repeat and put that into context mr. president. the president of the united states thinks that obamacare's working and that negative predictions about the law haven't come to pass. to respond to that, let me just read a few headlines from the past couple of weeks. this from cnn -- "obamacare sticker shock. big rate hikes proposed for 2016." from the associated press -- "many health insurers go big with initial 2016 rate requests." from "the hill," --" overhead costs exploding under obamacare study finds." from the associated press again -- "eight minnesota health

plans propose big premium hikes for 2016." from the lexington herald leader -- "most health insurance rates expected to rise next year in kentucky." i could go on. the truth is, mr. president not only is obamacare not working it's rapidly unraveling. a may 1 headline from the "washington post" reported, and i quote -- "almost half of obamacare exchanges face financial struggles in the future." end quote. hawaii's exchange has already failed. california's exchange is struggling to sign up consumers. one-third of the consumers who purchased insurance on the california exchange in 2014 declined to re-enroll in 2016. massachusetts exchange is being investigated by the federal government. colorado's exchange is struggling financially and has raised fees for consumers purchasing insurance plans. rhode island's governor is

pushing for new fees on insurance plans to help fund the 30.9 million operating cost -- cost -- $30.9 million operating cost of the rhode island exchange. that's $30.9 million to run an exchange that serves 30,000 people. the minnesota exchange was supposed to cover more than 130,000 individuals in its small business marketplace by 2016. so far it's covering 1,405 individuals or approximately 1% of the number it's intended to cover. the minnesota exchange has cost federal taxpayers $189 million so far. $189 million. an exchange that provides coverage for just 61,000 people. a recent "forbes" article notes that vermont's exchange, and i quote -- "will need $51 million a year to provide insurance to fewer than 32,000 enrollees, or

$1,613 per enrollee in overhead ." now, before obamacare $1,600 would have been enough to pay for the entire annual premium for some individual insurance plans. mr. president, while the obamacare exchanges unravel health insurance costs on the exchanges are soaring. insurers have requested double-digit premium increases on 676 individual and small group plans for 2016. more than six million people are enrolled in plans facing average rate increases of 10% or more. around the country rate increases of 20% 30% 40% and even 50% are common. one health care plan in arizona is seeking a rate increase of 78.9%. so much for the president's promise that his health care plan would -- quote -- bring down the cost of health care for

millions. in my home state of south dakota proposed rate increases range up to 44.4%. that's not something mr. president, that south dakota families can afford. the discussion about obamacare's success or failure is no longer theoretical. the evidence is in and it shows that the priz health care law is -- the president's health care law is broken. it is time to repeal obamacare. five years under obamacare is long enough for american families. mr. president, i also want to speak this morning about the president's misguided plan to reduce carbon emissions from existing power plants, specifically the impact it's going to have on my home state south dakota. over the last year e.p.a. has

claimed that its rule will grant states flexibility to meet burdensome emission reduction targets. however, there's really only one way for south dakota to meet its staggering target of 35% reduction, and that's by effectively shutting down big stone plant our only baseload coal-fired plant which will soon be among the cleanest in the country. the plant which provides affordable power to thousands in south dakota and neighboring states is nearing completion of a $384 million environmental upgrade project to meet the e.p.a.'s regional haze in utility mact regulations. as you can see highlighted here by a water town public opinion headline, the clean power plant would threaten the significant investment. mr. president, the e.p.a. has required this nearly $400

million upgrade, which is more than the original cost. the entire original cost of the plant itself. it is now turning around and saying that's not enough. we want it shut down. let me repeat that. the e.p.a. has required a $384 million environmental upgrade to make the plant among the cleanest in the country and now wants to put all that to waste. this the isn't right and this will stick south dakotans holding the bill. when the obama e.p.a. pushes new regulations to attack affordable and reliable coal generation, its -- it's low-income families who take the biggest hit. south dakotans have seen utility rates increase but the clean power plant will limit the ability for this investment to

be recouped. now they'll be charged even more. this is because the clean power plant would require big stone plant to run less, even on a limited or seasonal basis not at the high capacity for which it was designed and is most efficient. at the same time the clean power plant would require the plant to run more efficiently to meet strict emission requirements. so again, we've had this nearly $400 million investment to make the plant cleaner and more efficient in order to satisfy the e.p.a., and now the obama e.p.a. wants to shut it down. mr. president, the obama e.p.a. should not push regulations that result in higher utility costs for consumers less grid reliability and fewer jobs. affordable and reliable energy helps grow the economy and helps

low- and middle-income families make ends meet. unfortunately the e.p.a.'s rule will only increase electrical rates and hurt those who can afford it the least by forcing our most affordable energy sources off-line. mr. president, i urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this burdensome rule and to prevent the serious serious economic burden that it will impose on middle-income families in this country. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you mr. president. mr. president, this morning president obama will be speaking at a meeting of the catholic health association of the united states. the white house says that the president will talk about his health care law. you know, the president has already been spending a lot of time talking about the law.

at the g-7 summit in germany this past weekend the president was asked about the law and what he said is, he said the thing is working. he said we haven't had a conversation about the horrors of obamacare because in the president's words "none of them have come to pass." the president must be kidding himself. this morning when he talks to this catholic health care group president obama should stop his denial and he should confess the truth. if he gives another rosy speech about the impact of this terrible law, he will be once again intentionally and deliberately misleading the people in his audience. the president should not stand up on the stage today and pretend -- pretend -- that his law is helping more people than it hurts. he should not stand up on that

stage today and pretend -- pretend -- that he hasn't heard that his law is causing premiums to skyrocket. he should not stand on that stage today and pretend that he's kept his promises about this law. he should not stand up on that stage today without admitting -- admitting -- that his law has cut into the take-home pay of millions of hardworking americans. what the president should do is talk about how his health care law has hurt nonprofit hospitals like the catholic hospitals across the country. that was the subject of a "wall street journal" article just last wednesday with the headline hospitals expected more of a boost from health law. now remember, president obama said that his health care law was going to help hospitals. he said it it would help hospitals because uninsured

people wouldn't be coming into the emergency room, he said, needing free care anymore. well that hasn't happened. even more people are going to the emergency rooms today. according to the article in the "wall street journal," nonprofit hospitals have seen a huge increase in medicaid patients, and medicaid pays only about half of the cost of caring for patients. the article gives an example of a group of nonprofit hospitals near st. louis. now, it's lost about $5 million as a result of obamacare's medicaid expansion. that's a big hit for a nonprofit hospital to take. it directly affects hospitals' abilities to continue providing high-quality care. if president obama is honest today, i would say he needs to explain to this catholic health care group why his health care law has not lived up to

expectations. is he going to explain why his law is hurting their ability to provide care? it's not just hospitals that are being hurt by obamacare. millions of people across the country are seeing the news that their insurance premiums might soar by 20% 30% or even more next year. in north carolina, bluecross blue shield says it needs to raise premiums by 20%. in minnesota bluecross wants to raise rates by 54%. president obama spent part of his childhood in hawaii. one insurance company there is planning to raise premiums by 49%. will the president explain to this group today why premiums are skyrocketing? i'll tell you why they're skyrocketing. it's because of the cost of all the washington-mandated services that came from obamacare. another reason costs are going up is all the bureaucracy that

came with the health care law. there's an article in "the hill" newspaper may 27 with the headline "overhead costs exploding under obamacare study finds." the article says "five years after the passage of obamacare there is one expense that's still causing sticker shock across the health care industry: overhead costs." it goes on to say that administrative costs for health plans are expected to explode by more than a quarter of a trillion dollars over the next decade, according to this study. $270 billion over and above -- over and above -- what would have been expected had the health care law not been enacted. that's what the study found. under the health care law washington has been spending billions of taxpayer dollars on health care. one dollar out of every four is

going to overhead. not to treat sick or injured people. not to help prevent disease. no. to overhead. it's the president's law. it's incredible. this money isn't being used to help one sick child to provide medicine for a single individual. it's overhead. one of the study's authors put it, "the money is just going to bureaucracy." according to the study, this works out to $1,375 per newly insured person per year under obama's health care law. of course people's premiums are going through the roof. the health care law created to raise 20 different taxes. maybe president obama today should explain why one dollar out of every four that washington spends on health care should go to bureaucracy instead of to caring for patients. the president's health care law is hurting hardworking american families who are going to have to pay premiums of 40% to 50%

more next year. it's hurting the hospitals that are supposed to provide the actual health care to those patients. it's wasting hundreds of billions of dollars on overhead and bureaucracy instead of providing care for sick people. obamacare is an expensive disaster. now, that's not just my opinion. a new poll came out the other day from cnn. it found only 11% -- only one in nine americans -- say the law is a success. president obama says the law is working. well only one in nine agree with him. in another poll, just 39% of people support the law. that's down ten percentage points in one year. you say why is it? well because people look at it and say it's a bad deal for them personally. the president made promises, and

he has broken them. he said if you like your coverage, you can keep your coverage. millions lost their coverage. he said insurance premiums and costs would drop by $2,500. the costs have exploded, costs of the premiums, costs of the co-pays, costs of the deductibles. many people that have this new expensive insurance can't get care. coverage does not equal care. that's why mr. president this health care law is more unpopular now than ever before. some time this month the supreme court could make an important decision about the health care law. the court is set to rule on whether some of the billions of taxpayer dollars that president obama has been spending were even supposed to have been spent under the law. this decision could affect more than six million americans. so you would assume that the white house is prepared for the decision. you would assume that the white house would have a plan. well does the white house have

a plan for these six million americans who are worried about how they'll pay for their expensive, new obamacare plans with all of its mandates? not according to the president. in germany yesterday the president refused repeatedly, refused to talk about a plan b. the closest he came was to say congress could fix this whole thing with a one-sentence provision. that's not a real solution. people see their premiums going up and they're very concerned. president obama owes america a serious answer. republicans aren't interested in a one-sentence fix unless that sentence says obamacare is repealed. we want to protect the american people from this complicated confusing and costly health care law. if the court rules against the president, then republicans will be ready to sit down with

democrats to get some things right. that means stopping obamacare's broken promises and its harmful mandates. republicans will offer a plan and we will work with the president to give people back the freedom -- the freedom -- to make health care choices that work for them and for their families. it will be up to the president and democrats in congress whether they want to join us or if they want to continue with their partisan fight and their delusion that this law is popular and working. i hope that they will work with us on the reforms that the american people need, want, and deserve. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mrs. capito: thank you, mr. president. i rise to speak of our energy's natural economy. lay off 439 at west virginia coal mine. murray energy expects to lay off 1,800 coal miners. quote, "job cuts a devastating blow for ohio valley coal miners ." coal analysts say industry faces toughest times. end quote. quote, power bills to get higher. these are some of headlines in my area. these headlines are a stark reminder of the impact that misguided federal policies will have on the lives of real people. west virginia and other energy-producing states have suffered devastating blows. hardworking americans are losing their jobs as their energy bills keep climbing. i come to the floor today to encourage my colleagues to stand

up for our nation's energy future. last month i introduced the affordable care affordable reliable energy now act, the arena act with chairman mcconnell, my fellow west virginian joe manchin and many of my colleagues. this would protect families and businesses from electricity rate increases, reduced electrical reliability and other harmful effects of the clean power act. the arena act would require that any greenhouse gas standards set by the e.p.a. for new coal-fired plants are achievable by commercial power plants including highly efficient plants that utilize the most modern state-of-the-art emissions control technologies. back in february, i asked e.p.a. acting administrator janet mckay to explain why despite multiple invitations from federal and state legislators the e.p.a. did not hold a public

hearing on its proposed clean power act in west virginia, given the large role that coal plays in our economy and our electricity generation. and do you know what she said? she told me that public hearings were held in places where people were --quote, unquote -- comfortable. well that response is unacceptable to me and to the people of my state. that response which represents e.p.a.'s disregard for the real world impacts of its policies helped shape this legislation. the e.p.a.'s proposed greenhouse gas regulations will negatively impact both energy affordability and energy reliability. coal has provided 96% of west virginia's electricity last year and west virginia was among the lowest electricity prices in the nation. last year, the average price was 27% below the national average. but these low prices are not

likely to survive this administration's policies. studies have projected that the clean power plan will raise electricity prices in west virginia between 12% and 16%. just last month 450,000 west virginia families learned of a 16% increase in the cost of electricity. while there were multiple factors that contributed to this rate increase, compliance with previous e.p.a. regulations played a significant role. if we allow e.p.a.'s plan to move forward last week's rate increase will only be a tip of the iceberg. affordable energy matters. the 430,000 low and middle-income families in west virginia, which is nearly 60% of our state's households, take home an average of less than $1,900 a month and spend 17% of their after-tax income on energy. these families are especially

vulnerable to the price increases that will result from the clean power plan. other west virginians will -- other west virginia families will bear the brunt of the e.p.a.'s policy more directly. in the past few weeks 1,800 west virginia coal miners received layoff notices. the notices came at alpha natural resources and murray energy the two largest coal companies in our state. patriot coal also filed for bankruptcy for a second time. three coal-fired power plants closed costing also more jobs in the state of west virginia. when mines and coal-fired power plants close the ripple effect is felt through our entire economy. the wheeling intelligencer reported that the murray layoffs alone would mean $62 million in annual lost wages for ohio valley residents. other parts of our state have been hit just as hard. in nicholas county, the local government was forced to lay off employees, including a number of sheriff's deputies because of a

drop in the coal severance tax. last month the energy information agency released its analysis of the proposed rule. the administration's own energy statistician found that the clean power plant would shut down more than double the coal-fired power plant capacity that we have. by the end of this decade. the north american electric reliability cooperation has also -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mrs. capito: thank you. i urge support for the arena act, and i yield back my time. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president, what is our parliament position? -- our parliamentary position? the presiding officer: the senate is in morning business with senators permitted to speak up to ten minutes. mr. nelson: mr. president may i be recognized? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president i ask consent to grant floor privileges to sean easley, a defense fellow serving on our staff during consideration of

this bill, h.r. 1735, the defense authorization bill. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: thank you mr. president. and i want to rise to give my overall support to the content of the defense authorization bill but my considerable concern and therefore my no vote on final passage in the armed services committee because the bill as crafted by the majority in the committee is a travesty of using an artificial budget to authorize the necessary operations and troop readiness of our military establishment.

now, that's what the bill does. it is an artificial budget. that may not sound particularly offensive, particularly when there is a policy bill there are many good things in this defense bill things like providing for the increase of our military services things like certain weapons systems that are authorized and historically this bill has been recognized as being bipartisan and it addresses the problems posed by an increasingly dangerous world and the bill historically defense authorization has provided the military with the resources that our nation needs.

but the ranking democrat, the senator from rhode island and i are compelled to oppose this bill because it addresses these problems with an artificial budget that treats a part, an essential part of our military. that is, preparedness. the necessary operations, training and maintenance preparedness of our military. it treats it in an unplanned way as an expense by sending it over to an account that is not even on the budget an account called overseas contingency operations or the funds for what used to be the iraq war and is now the

winding down of the afghanistan war. an unbudgeted item. operations readiness training necessary for our military to be ready, and they're taking out of the defense department budget and sticking it over here. now, that doesn't make sense. so you say well, why in the world would they do that? because folks around here are concerned about something called the sequester, which is supposedly an artificial limit on keeping expenditures of the federal government below a certain level. that may sound like a good thing if it's done with legitimate numbers, but when in fact you put that artificial limit and

you're creating that artificial limit pressing down on federal spending but you take a major part of that federal spending out and put it over here in an unaccounted for account that doesn't reach those budgetary caps. that's nothing. i'll put it politely. that's budgetary sleight of hand. i'll put it more directly that's budgetary fakery. and therefore this senator is going to oppose the bill. the senate armed services committee has received testimony from military leader after military leader. chief master sergeants generals admirals who have said that the policy of this arbitrary budget caps called

sequestration is harming our national security and it's putting our military strategy at risk. and our strategy is not just dependent on defense spending, but it's very dependent upon nondefense spending, which in this bill is not even being addressed because that artificial ceiling the sequestration is like a meat ax right across the federal budget. and that is affecting and every one of those military leaders will tell you that is affecting our military preparedness. these arbitrary budget caps impact this nondefense spending. it keeps us from providing funds

for other agencies that are so essential to the national security. the coast guard. they're out there in the war zone they're in another war zone down in the caribbean as they are interdicting all kinds of drug smugglers. what about the f.b.i., the c.i.a. the d.e.a., customs border control air traffic control, t.s.a.? all of those are affected and affect national security. and so if we're going to continue to budget like this, the result is going to be more budget uncertainty for our military and it's going to end up bleeding funds away from our military readiness. what we're doing is we're avoiding the obvious. the obvious is working around to

try to bring those numbers down under those artificial budget caps. and so it's time for us to get rid of the sequester. we did it before two years ago with a bipartisan budget, the one known as murray ryan. we need to do it again. otherwise, right now we are wasting our time working on bills that have no chance of becoming law. and we need to fix the budget caps for defense and nondefense spending. not a band-aid when you have got an artery that is gushing blood. now, if it were not just this, there are other examples. take, for example a program that i have some familiarity with our nation's space program. here we are, we have been trying for now since 2010, since

senator kay bailey hutchison a republican from texas and i passed a nasa authorization bill that put us on the course that will ultimately, as the president has now announced taken us to mars. but we can't get the policy updated because we can't pass another nasa authorization bill. so what happens? it goes to the appropriation committee. thank goodness we've got folks like senator shelby and senator mikulski that direct that, but now what's happening to appropriations bills? they're being put under this sequester and because of that it's going to be hard in this chamber getting 60 votes to pass appropriation bills and as a result we're going to be in near cardiac arrest right at the end

of the time doing a continuing resolution, which is no way to run a where when you appropriate money. we've got to come to the altar and realize what we are facing, and that is this artificial budgetary cap. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. ms. hirono: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that the following speakers in morning business be limited to speak for up to five minutes each: myself, senators gillibrand, manchin and markey. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. hirono: mr. president i rise today in support of amendment 1521 which would limit the use of overseas contingency

operations or o.c.o. funds. i'm proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment which was filed by the ranking member of the senate armed services committee senator jack reed. i want to start by thanking chairman mccain and senator reed for their leadership in producing the underlying bill. drafting a national defense authorization act or ndaa is no small task, and i support many important provisions included in the bill. as ranking member of the sea-par subcommittee, i worked with chairman wicker to include provisions that will strengthen and support our navy and marine corps. every defense bill presents challenges and trade-offs. there are competing priorities and compromises. for 52 consecutive years both chambers have debated the details and come up with a product that supports and enhances our national security.

however, this year's bill presents more than just a difference over details. the overall framework of this bill is a problem. before us is a bill that presents a serious question about our national values, a question that the reed amendment would help to answer. earlier this year the republicans pushed through a budget resolution. that resolution clearly set forth the framework that chairman mccain had to work with them. that framework basically said we're not going to address sequestration in a meaningful way. instead we're only going to provide sequester relief for the defense budget. i note that this budget resolution passed the senate without a single democratic vote. i ask my colleagues to join me in objecting to an approach that bifurcates sequester relief as though our country's national

security lies only with the department of defense. because that is what this ndaa bill does. how? the bill before us takes $38 billion out of the base budget at the department of defense and moves it into the o.c.o. budget. the o.c.o. budget is not subject to budget control caps. the reason for this is that o.c.o. funds are intended to support the unknown unsnoans that arise -- the unknown unknowns that arise. using the o.c.o. account to fund noncontingency items is irresponsible. it is a one-year fix and adds to our budget deficit. it's not fair to our commanders on the ground who have told us that we need to fix sequester permanently so they can prepare for the long term. using the o.c.o. account to shield the d.o.d. from sequester has been called a gimmick by many. i am for a strong national

defense. however, the foundation of our military strength is the strength of our economy. it's the strength of our communities. it's the strength of our future. failing to fix sequestration for both defense and non-defense will undermine the strength of our national defense. again, our national security is not just tied to our military strength. there are other national security initiatives that are not funded by the department of defense. for example, we have the state department, the f.b.i., homeland security the coast guard and other law enforcement agencies and programs that are all important components of our national security. none of these programs are funded by the department of defense. in addition, the department of defense has said that fewer than one in four americans in the eligible age range are qualified to enlist in the armed services.

this is due to a variety of reasons, including health, obesity, fitness mental aptitude, et cetera. cutting funding to nutrition programs education initiatives preventive health measures and fitness programs will result in even fewer individuals qualifying for our armed services. by not fixing both the military and domestic sides of the budget we're undermining the foundation of our security and our future. america is one country where the decisions we make in congress should reflect that reality. we need to eliminate the sequester because these across-the-board cuts hurt our middle class families, our businesses and our national security. we need to eliminate the sequester, period. to continue to be bound by mindless across-the-board cuts to both our defense and domestic budgets, cuts that were never

supposed to become reality is pure folly. congress needs to come together in a spirit of bipartisan cooperation to fix sequester. this proposal by senator reed just fences the $38 billion of o.c.o. funds until congress comes together to do just that. it doesn't take the funding out of the budget, but it does prevent spending it before relief from budget control act cuts are achieved on both the defense and domestic sides. i urge my colleagues to support the reed amendment to provide for a responsible defense budget. i yield back my time.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: mr. president are we in morning business? the presiding officer: we are. mr. manchin: mr. president i've always said that being a super power means more than super military might. it means more than super diplomacy. it would contain restraint and super fiscal responsibility. all of these is part of being a super power. admiral mullen, the former chairman of the joint chief of staffs said the greatest threat to our national security is our debt. not another nation, not another army, not fear of terrorism but basically our debt. the u.s. has and will continue to have the greatest military in

the world. but in order to remain the most powerful, we have to get our financial house in order. i think we all agree on that but we don't seem to be practicing it very much. i fully support senator reed's amendment basically by fencing the o.c.o. funding. if you look and see how we've gotten ourselves into this situation we have now it's not democrat or republican. it's all of our faults and it's all of our responsibility to fix it. basically we've had two wars, afghanistan and iraq, we didn't fund. we did it through accounting procedures, emergency procedures, contingency funds. and now we continue to expand upon that if we go down this route without fixing it with senator reed's amendment. ensuring the safety of the american people doesn't mean increasing defense spending to fund never-ending wars in the middle east nor in non-defense programs that are also crucial to our national security. and i've said this over and over again. if you think money and military might would fix that part of the world, the united states of america would have done it by

now. for years critical non-defense programs such as the department of homeland security and the state department have been forced to absorb damaging across-the-board cuts. they are also extremely important in safeguarding the homeland. while we continue to keep and place the budget caps for these agencies we have underhandedly gone around spending them as improperly increased war funding. ofthe most recent gim mick is an attempt to trafer -- transfer money to increase funding for overseas conflict. i've said time and again that after a decade of war in the middle east costing $1.6 trillion does anyone believe we haven't done our part and tried? if money and might would have changed it, we would have done it by now. what's more important we're denying funding from other important programs that desperately need these funds to keep our nation safe and secure.

in order to be truly security we need our flon -- nondepartment of defense and agencies to be able to function also. the pentagon cannot meet the national security challenges without the help of our governmental departments and agencies. we're all in this together. we're all responsible to protect this country. we're all responsible to make sure that we can properly ensure that people have the opportunity to take care of themselves also. as a retired marine corps general matt said, if you don't fund the state department fully thin i need -- then i need to buy more ammunition. last week showed how vulnerable our networks are to cyber attacks, before nations that wish to do us harm. westled -- we've had a cyber bill before us for many years now. we've been told of the threat we face from different countries trying to hack in and do us

harm. yet we haven't been able to move because of the toxic political atmosphere that we have here. our national security is also inherently tied to our economic security. failures to invest in programs like stem education and infrastructure projects are shortsighted. failure to provide the b.c.a. cap relief would shortchange our veterans who receive employment services transition assistance in housing the homeless, supports through other agencies such as department of labor. the bottom line is that we need to get our long-term budget that reduces the deficit in line. and increasing the o.c.o. money that this bill has in it right now only hurts that goal. it makes it much more difficult and elusive. the defense budget needs to be based on this long-term military strategy which requires the department of defense to focus at least five years into the future. this is only a one-year plan. you think it's not going to be extended and extended and

extended? you think we're just going to start it and stop it in one year? i don't think so. the fiscal responsibility approach we need to take is fixing the b.c.a. caps. we're hearing about the whole thing of sequestration how horrible it is. well let me tell you how you can fix it. sit down and put a budget that's realistic, that puts our long-term financial plan solid. that's all it takes. yet, we're unwilling to do it. we're just condemning it. we're condemning it because it constrains how we want to do business, which means not being held accountable or responsible. that's all. every meeting i go to, whether it's a nondiscretion or military spending, we all need more to expand programs. yet we never take the g.a.o.'s report. the general accounting office says we can save $3 billion to $4 bll if we get rid of the waste, redundancies that go on. we're not doing anything about that. our national debt is not a democratic problem or republican problem.

it is all our problem. in 2008 our country faced one of the worst financial cry size in our nation's in our nation's history. we added $is trillion in debt -- added $1 trillion in debt to fund two wars. between the wars, tax cuts, the recession and out-of-control spending, our nation's debt has exploded from $5 trillion to $18 trillion. currently our deficits are decreasing from $1.4 trillion in 2009 down to a little under half a billion dollars according to the c.b.o. and it's expected to remain stable for the next couple years. the bad news is that after 2017, if we don't change our ways the deficits are projected to increase over $1 trillion a year through 2025. unless congress can put aside partisan politics and put the country on fiscally sustainable path, we will add over $7.5 trillion to our debt in the next

ten years. that's adding $7.5 trillion to $18 trillion in debt we have right now. there's no way the next generation or the generation after will ever be able to dig out of this hole if we don't fix it now. but we have to be smart about how we reduce spending. as we saw on the 2013 sequestration, across the board does more harm than good. i've always said this, when you start cutting you don't cut basically the things that continue to make progress for you. when we don't do the -- the i.r.s. doesn't do its job and it's incapable of doing that, the revenue owed to this country, you can't cut back on that and expect it to be solid. i pushed for bipartisan compromise that will reduce spending fix our broken tax system reform entitlement programs in order to reduce our debt and provide the economy with certainty and stability. for instance, if we can enact

$2.5 trillion deficit reduction over the next ten years if we had followed the simpson-bowles recommendations. it's an all encompassing approach that raises revenue promotes growth through comprehensive tax reform that brings our tax code into the modern age. increasing efficiency, simplifying the process of individuals and businesses. the plan enacts serious entitlement reforms and makes additional targeted spending cuts aimed at long-term deficit reductions so that we can encourage economic growth. it's crucial that we make the necessary forms that will make -- reforms that will make this nation a better place for future jedgeses. with -- generations. i again express my support for senator reed's amendment that would block any additional, unnecessary, unaudited spending for a continual war effort that we have no oversight. we were elected to basically look at the process that we have. so i ask for an extra two minutes, if i could to finish. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. politburo manchin: with that

being said, mr. president all i am saying is we should be smart learn from our past and our experiences that we have had. it hasn't worked well for us now. we can change it. we're the only ones that can change it. this country has a strong economy. it could be even stronger in we work together. the bottom line is we want to be smart. we want to be smart where we invest our money where we spend our troops and put americans in harm's way. we want to be smart in the domestic investments we make here in this country. we want to be sure they're working. if they're not working don't be afraid to say hey i tried. if you see two programs doing basically the same thing consolidate. let's start looking at ways to run this country the way each american is expected to run their life. every small business or large business is expected to make prudent investments and work efficiently. that's all we've asked for. this type of spending of basically unaccountable will lead us down the path to increase the debt and doesn't make us any more secure and get

us involved in places that we don't have any oversight and don't have any input. i do not i do not as a u.s. senator wish to walk away from my responsibilities to make rermingses for what i think would be not only the best for the west virginia people that i represent but this entire country which i love. so with that, mr. president i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: thank you mr. president. mr. president, i voted against the budget control act as a member of the house of representatives because i did not think it was a responsible course for our country. to me, sequestration is just a fancy term for mindless budget cuts. unfortunately, sequestration became law in the mandated -- and the mandated across-the-board spending cuts went into effect in march of 2013. i have been fighting to completely eliminate sequestration through a balanced

approach to federal spending and changes to our tax code to reduce our budget deficit. and that's why i am very disappointed that the defense authorization bill we are considering today uses a budget gimmick to end sequestration cuts for defense spending but continue to impose mandatory cuts for critical domestic priorities like education health care and medical research. this legislation transfers nearly $40 billion in defense spending to a glorified slush fund called the overseas contingency operations account or o.c.o. account as a way to avoid triggering sequestration cuts. let's be clear. o.c.o. o.c.o. really stands for open checkbook operation for our

budget. and it stands for outrageous cop-out by the g.o.p. instead of cutting funding for defense, republicans choose instead to cut programs for the defenseless. this isn't responsible budgeting. it is a cynical game. the majority is attempting to avoid its responsibilities under sequestration. they themselves demanded -- demand it be enacted into law just a few years ago. instead, we get $40 billion in additional spending for the pentagon and $36 billion in cuts to food stamps and head start and preventative health care and critical social programs. this is what the game is all about. sequestration is now being dishonored. they believe they're found in exit ramp for the defense

department for the cuts that they had accepted. as a party the republicans would be opposed if the democrats would accept in equal measure cuts in social programs. that's the deal. a sort of -- a sword of damocles hanging over both programs, defense and nondefense, that is civilian and domestic programs to force us as an institution to work together in a responsible fashion. that's the deal of sequestration. that's the point of it. it was to force us to work together. instead, the republicans want an exit ramp for the defense department out of the sequestration program while allowing the social programs for the poor, for the sick, for the elderly to stay inside of these cuts that occur under a sword of damocles on an automatic basis. we're endangering our ability to

teach our kids the skills they will need for the jobs of the future. we're making it harder for poor families in massachusetts and across the country to put food on the table. we're jeopardizing the health of grandma and grandpa and what are we really protecting when we mandate these cuts for critical social programs but not for our defense spending? we're protecting america's nuclear arrestsial budget of $50 billion a year that is filled with waste and can be cut significantly without harming our national security. we spend more money on nuclear weapons than all other countries combined. this is the epitome of overkill. can we find anything in the nuclear weapons budget that would be cut? absolutely not say the republicans. we have to increase that budget. well how are we going to pay for it? we're going to pay for it from poor children, from the elderly in our country. we spend more money on nuclear

weapons just because the defense department and the military contractors want them, and that's why i have introduced legislation with jeff merkley bernie sanders and al franken called the sane act the smarter approach to nuclear expenditures act. it would cut $100 billion over the next ten years from our bloated nuclear weapons budget. it is time to stop funding a nuclear weapons budget that threatens to undermine our long-term economic security. we should be funding education not annihilation. we should be helping people find jobs not helping to build new nuclear weapons. we should be curing diseases, not creating new instruments of death. even within our own budget, the department of defense should be prioritizing higher pay for marines, not more minutemen missiles. somewhere, dr. strangelove is smiling from the grave while millions of american families struggle to meet the daily budget which they have to

balance. mr. president, i am a cosponsor of the reed amendment to stop any increase in the so-called o.c.o. account until the budget control caps for both defense and nondefense spending are lifted equally. for those who say the cuts to defense spending endanger our security i say we face a very real type of economic security threat here at home. millions of seniors worry about an end to medicare and medicaid. millions of students need help to pay to go to college. millions of american workers try to make ends meet on the minimum wage. mr. markey: i support the reed amendment. that will keep america truly safe healthy and secure. and i yield back the balance of my time. the presiding officer: 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. 1735, an act to authorize

appropriation for fiscal year 2016 for military activities of the department of defense and so forth and for other purposes. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: under the previous order the time until 3:00 p.m. will be equally divided between the plarntion and their designees -- between the managers and their designees. the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president as we consider the amendment by the senator from rhode island, i would like to again remind my colleagues that the world is in turmoil, the world has never seen greater crises. that since the end of world war ii according to people as well respected as dr. kissinger and i repeat my assertion that o.c.o. was not the right or best way to do business. the worst way to do business is to have an authorization that will eliminate our ability to

defend this nation and the men and women who serve it. i urge my colleagues to read this weekend's "new york times," the global struggle to respond to the worst refugee crisis in generations. 11 million people were uprooted by violence last year. most propelled by conflict in syria, iraq, ukraine and afghanistan. conflict in extreme poverty have also pushed tens of thousands out of parts of sub-saharan africa and southeast asia. the worst migration crisis since world war ii, according to the united nations. that's what's going on in the world, and we're worried about how we are going to defend the nation with priorities that are dramatically skewed and unfair.

islamic state attacks government office on western fringe of baghdad. this is yesterday. three militants disguised in military uniform killed at least eight people in a local government office in western iraq on tuesday. and in an attack claimed by the islamic state. u.s. army's main web site is down and the syrian electronic army is claiming credit. the syrian electronic army hacked the official web site for the u.s. army, a twitter account apparently associated with the activist group claimed monday. the site was down in the afternoon while screen shots posted on the social network by the group reported to show messages of support for beleaguered syrian president bashar assad on the site earlier today. that's "the washington post," june 8 at 4:53 p.m.

the world islamic state seizes power plant near libyan city. islamic state militants have seized a power plant west of the libyan city which supplies central and western parts of the country with electricity. the group and a military source said on tuesday. the plant was taken islamic states said in a message on social media adding that the capture of the plant meant that the militants had driven their enemies out of the entire city. libya descending into chaos and isis extending its effect, its influence. "washington post" june 6. libyan gains may offer isis a base for new attacks. israda libya. as the islamic state scores new victories in syria and iraq, its affiliates in libya -- its

affiliate in libya is also on the offensive consolidating control of moammar qadhafi's former hometown and staging a bomb attack on a major city, misrada. islamic state's growth could further destabilize a country already suffering from a devastating civil war and libya could offer the extremists a new base from which to launch attacks elsewhere in north africa. "washington post." fox news, june 9. isis captures 88 christians in libya, u.s. official confirms. the isis group kidnapped them from a smuggler's caravan in libya last week, a u.s. defense official confirmed on monday. what is at stake in ukraine if

russia continues its onslaught? ukraine is fighting a war on two fronts the one you see on television that is taking place in the east of our country where thousands of russian troops are engaged in an armed aggression against ukraine's territorial integrity, including the illegal annexation of crimea, a peace that's important by the prime minister of ukraine. "wall street journal," president obama admits his anti-isis strategy isn't -- quote -- complete. president obama doesn't give many -- this is "the wall street journal." president obama doesn't give many press conferences at home, so sometimes his most revealing media moments come when he is buttonholed abroad. witness his answer monday in austria to a question about iraq. mr. obama offered a startling

explanation for why the war against the islamic state isn't going so well. the strategy still isn't up and running. quote -- "we don't yet have a complete strategy because it requires commitments on the part of the iraqis as well about how recruitment takes place how that training takes place and so the details of that are not yet worked out." wow. we still do not have a strategy to try to counter the islamic state or isis which took control of mosul a year ago and beheaded two americans for all the world to see last summer. mr. obama announced his anti-isis strategy in a september speech promising to degrade and destroy the self-styled isis. nine months later here we are.

isis has overrun ramadi, the gateway to baghdad the grand alliance mr. barack obama promised barrel exists, they're fretting about the lack of weapons to forestall a major isis astatute the u.s. bombing campaign is hesitant and now mr. obama tells us the training of iraqis is barely under way. members only -- i will skip through some of these. because i know that my colleagues are waiting to speak. associated press activists syrian air raid kills 49 in northwestern village. government airstrikes on a northwestern syrian village monday killed at least 49 people and left survivors screaming in anguish as they pulled bodies

from the rubble court activists and videos of the chaotic aftermath. the local coordinating committee said two air raids on the village killed 60 people and wounded others. the britain based observatory for human rights said the air raid killed 49 people including six children. it said the death toll could rise as some people are still missing. huthi rebels fire scud missile into yemen from yemen into saudi arabia. that's an associated press june 6. bloomberg view by eli lake, iran spends billions to prop up assad. iran is spending billions of dollars a year to prop up bashar al-assad according to the envoy to syria and outside experts. these estimates are far higher

than what the barack obama administration busy negotiating a nuclear deal with the tehran government has implied iran spends on its policy to destabilize the middle east. i would, by the way add to that that iranians are basically even taking over cabinet positions in the bashar assad government. june 5 report china dispatching surveillance vessels off hawaii. china has begun dispatching surveillance vessels off the coast of hawaii in response to the navy's monitoring activities of disputed islands in the south china sea. the purported surveillance comes on the heels of raised tensions between china and the united states late last month. financial times june 7, u.s. struggles for strategy to contain china's island building. china's efforts to dredge new

land on remote coral atolls in if south china sea has left the u.s. struggling to come up with a response. for washington, chinese land creation has helped make allies of former adversaries now fearful of military domination by an assertive china. the latest example was a trip to vietnam last week by the defense secretary who sent u.s. craft to the area. there is a limit how how much they're willing to present a united front to china which has reclaimed 19,000 acres of land in two months, according to the obama administration is also unsure about how strongly it should push back against what u.s. officials see as a long-term chinese plan to control the region's waters. and finally actually this is a

piece from "politico" today actually the united states does have a strategy to fight the islamic state a state department spokesman says. the president was -- quote -- "the president was referring to a specific plan to improve the training and equipping of iraqi security forces and the pentagon is working on that plan right now. but absolutely we have a strategy kirby said tuesday on msnbc's "morning joe." mr. president, i would be overjoyed to have that plan, that -- a complete strategy and that plan presented to the congress and the american people. it would be a wonderful event. and the fact is they have no strategy and they have no policy and the world is on fire and here we are, here we are going to try to pass an amendment

which would deprive the men and women who are serving of the means and wherewithal to defend this nation. i hope my colleagues will strongly reject the amendment that will be pending before this body. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: thank you mr. president. i would initially ask unanimous consent to add senator milulski senator merkley senator udall senator leahy senator donnelly, senator boxer, senator menendez, senator booker, senator feinstein, senator cardin, senator klobuchar and senator peters as cosponsors of the reed amendment number 1521 to h.r. 1735. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: thank you very much, mr. president. mr. president, i rise to discuss my amendment number 1521 to fence all funding above

$50.9 billion in the account for overseas contingency operations until budget caps on both defense and nondefense have between raised. my amendment specifically recognizes the need for these resources but it objects to the way that this o.c.o. fund is being used as a way to circumvent the budget control act. and it does so i think on very sound grounds that over the long run we'll be -- will be beneficial to the department of defense and to everyone who is engaged in the defense of the united states. mr. president, we debate and vote on many issues in the senate and while all the issues are important occasionally we must face an issue that truly could change the course of our nation. because the consequences of our actions here are often not known for years the votes may be very difficult when they're taken, but they are very, very

important. one example of such an issue is iraq. 13 years ago the majority of the body, 79 senators from both parties voted to go to war in iraq. i did not vote in favor of the war. in fact, i spoke against it. and i think the outcome could have been very different back then if we had more of a debate about the true cost and the long-term cost to thousands of lives lost, the countless wounded, some with invisible scars if we thought the united states would be on a war footing for over a decade and american taxpayers would be on the hook for trillions of dollars and that we would perhaps even contribute by actions to new threats that we are facing today. back then it was implied sometimes stated that opposing the iraq war meant you didn't support the troops or were weak on national security. and i think the intervening years have shown that to be

inaccurate. but we're hearing echoes of that rhetoric again. if you don't support this version of the ndaa, then you don't support the troops. a -- terms like taking this bill hostage. that's just not the case. since 2005, senate republicans voted against cloture on the ndaa the national defense authorization bill, 10 times. and over that same period, they cast votes against final passage of the ndaa on the senate floor eight times. sometimes it was because of policy differences like ending "don't ask, don't tell." other times it was things like gas prices at the pump. or other issues. but i don't think anyone has ever done it to be unpatriotic. we can't change history but we can certainly learn friday. we can't see into -- from it. he we must pay for it by making

strategic investments today. and this debate really boils down to this -- what's the most effective way to provide for our national defense and i don't think inflating the overseas contingency account o.c.o., is the way to go. because it complicates rather than helps the pentagon's budgetary problems. it doesn't allow the military to effectively plan for the future. we need to replace the senseless sequester with a balanced approach that keeps america safe and strong at home and abroad. when it comes to the budget -- defense budget, congress should adhere to honesty, transparency and discipline we demand from our troops. right now there's a serious disconnect in the o.c.o. mechanism of this bill and congress needs to step up and fix it. the president's fiscal year 2016 budget request for defense was

$38 billion above the 2011 budget control act. the b.c.a. the spending caps. the president requested this $38 billion be authorized and appropriated as part of the annual base budget. so they could be part of the defense department's funding not just for one year as o.c.o. is but in the budget for an indefinite permit. the request also contained $50.9 billion for the o.c.o. account meaning funding for truly war-related expenses and not enduring base budget requirements. however, this bill following the lead of the budget resolution does not address the b.c.a.'s damaging impacts on defense and nondefense. instead, it turns to a gimmick. this bill initially transferred $39 billion from the base budget request of the president to the

o.c.o. budget, leaving a base budget conveniently below the b.c.a. levels in order to avoid triggering automatic reductions through sequestration. the funding shifted to o.c.o. is for enduring requirements for military services, not direct war-related costs not those costs generated in iraq, afghanistan, and elsewhere. it includes flying aircraft, steaming days for ships and submarines training that supports current and future training in support of the national military strategy. these are not o.c.o. expenses. these are the expenses of the department of defense facing the long-term challenges of the united states. and maintaining the long-term capabilities of the united states defense forces. so some have said we should avoid subjecting defense spending to the budget control caps through this o.c.o.

approach for a year while a deal to revise or eliminate the b.c.a. caps is negotiated. i cooperate disagree more. because if we use this approach this gimmick for up with year, it will be easier to do it next year and the year after and the year after that. ensuring an enduring imbalance between security and domestic spending. using o.c.o. in this way is completely counter to the intent of the cack b.c.a. the budget control act, the b.c.a. imposed proportionately equal cuts to defense and nondefense spending to force a bipartisan compromise. this approach unilaterally reneges on that bipartisan approach. rather than generating momentum for a permanent solution to sequestration, this approach essentially exempts defense spending from the b.c.a. caps and releases all pressure to

find a solution that provides similar relief for domestic spending priorities. the president's defense budget request placed the needed funding in the base where it should be. and provided for the o.c.o. funds for contingencies overseas that exist today. the budget resolution and the bill before us met the president's request for overall funding -- this is not a question whether the president asked for a certain amount of money and my republican colleagues are asking for more more -- what they did is essentially said we're going to not technically -- i emphasize "technically" -- violate the b.c.a. account we're going to move more money into o.c.o. so we can stand up with a straight face and say b.c.a. applies across the board every government agency is imposed --

under the same tight limits the budget control act imposes. the truth is under the use of o.c.o. that doesn't apply to the department of defense. it is particularly startling when you look at the president's requests for domestic agencies. he aske -- he asked for $37 billion for for all the other domestic agencies above the b.c.a. caps. without that money they're going to have a very difficult -- indeed, perhaps impossible -- challenge of meeting the baiive needs of the -- basic needs of the american public, needs that every colleague in this chamber recognizes. some might disagree with them, but they recognize that we need to support education as we've done for decades through the title 1 program. we need to support people, our seniors particularly, through senior housing programs. in every state in every community, that has to be done. but if we follow this path, it'll be harder and harder for

non-defense agencies to do this. and so what we've created is a huge loophole. and again let me remind you the president and my colleagues on the other side are not arguing about the resources necessary for defense. they've picked the same number. but what they've done on the other side is funded that, not straightforwardly, not recognizing that we have to deal with the b.c.a., but using this -- and i say again this gimmick. and if it remains in the bill, i believe this approach will would be a magnet for non-defense spending in future years. not only will we become addicted to o.c.o. spending, many, many interesting things will find their way into the o.c.o. accounts. for example in fiscal year 1992 congress added funds to

the defense bill for breast cancer research. at the time, discretionary spending was subject to statutory caps under the budget enforcement act of 1990. this was the follow john to the gramm-rudman-hollings act of 195. what we had done is establish caps on discretionary domestic spending but there were no similar caps on the other side. that's precise willly what the effect of this proposal is today. the initial funding led to the establishment of the congressionally directed medical research program. every senator is familiar with this important program. i would suspect every senator has said and stood and said, "yea," that is so critical and important. it has strong, bipartisan support. and each fiscal year, congress authorizes and appropriates hundreds of millions of dollars to the cdmrp for cutting-edge

research. since then, fund cdmrp funding has received millions of dollars. while this program is managed by the army, the department of defense is not -- does not ex-ute any of the money itself. it is a competitive grant process and subject to review. it is a pass-threw because back then the only way you could get this done was because there were no caps effectively on defense spending and i would suggest that that is going to repeat itself over and over again if we start on this path. and that's why we can look today and say, we have these pressing crises all across the globe and it is true. but if we go down this parkts we -- but if we go down this path, we will

see these types of developments many idevelopmentsand i am a strong supporter of medical research. these programs have saved countless lives. i will support funding in this bill. i think it is the -- is a way that was established to deal with the program but we should recognize it came about not because it was the most logical place to place medical research funding; it was a budgetary expedient, just like this approach today. and it will be recomplicated. and looking forward ten years, i would suggest that you'll see lots of meritorious programs that bear less and less connectivity to our overseas orpgs included in o.c.o. if that's the way we choose to get around the b.c.a. that's what this legislation is doing. there's another point that has

to be made. moving the funding has no impact on real estate ducing the deficit. o.c.o. and emergency funding are outside budget caps for a reason. they are for the costs of ongoing military operations or respond to other unforeseen events like natural disasters. to suddenly ignore the true purpose of o.c.o. and treat it as a budgetary gimmick to skirt the b.c.a. is unacceptable use for this important tool for our war fighters. just to highlight how this o.c.o. approach skews defense spending consider the amount of o.c.o. in relation to the number deployed troops. if you ask someone i think on the street, well, these overseas funds, they're used to support our forces overseas. there's got to be some relationship between the number of our forces overseas and our o.c.o. spend spending. well let's see. in 2008 at the height of the our nation's troop commitment in iraq and afghanistan 187,000

troops deployed. we spent approximately $1 million in o.c.o. funding for every service member deployed to those countries. under this bill, we would expend approximately $million in o.c.o. for every service member deployed to iraq and afghanistan. roughly $9 9,930 military personnel. so we're doing a lot more than spending for o.c.o. in this bill bill. deliberately a lot more. we are doing what we used to do and what we should do in the base budget of the department of defense. it circumvents the law the b.c.a.; it's not fiscally responsible; and i.t. not an honest accounting to the american public. years ago with 187,000 troops,

our o.c.o. costs were about $1 million a troop and now they're $9 million. something is askew. and adding to the funds to o.c.o. does not solve in some casescases complicates the d.o.d.'s budget tears problems. as general odierno said, "o.c.o. has limits and restriction it has very strict rules that have to be followed. so if we're inhibited by that, it might not help us. what might happen at the end of the year, we have a bunch of money we hand back because we are not able to spend it." the defense budget needs to be based on a long-term military strategy which requires the d.o.d. to focus at least five years in the future. a one-year-plus up to o.c.o. does not provide d.o.d. with the certainty and stability it needs when building its five-year budget. as general dempsey chairman of the joint chiefs, testified, "we need to fix the base budget.

we won't have the certainty we need if there is a year-by-year o.c.o. fix." defense secretary carter says it does not allow the defense department to plan efficiently. it is an unfound approach which should be a multi--year budget process. according to the chief of staff of the army general allen "the current restrictions on the employment of o.c.o. will not allow it to be a gap filler that is currently being proffered to offset the reduction in our base budget that is driven by the current proposals that are before congress. in order to meet the needs of our army, it must have greater flexibility. it must be less restrictive and it must enable us to sustain and modernize as we go forward." this instability undermines the morale of our troops and their families who want to know their futures are planned for more than one year at a time.

and the confidence of our defense industry partners who we rely on to provide the best technology available to our troops are also tested. abuse of o.c.o. in this massive way risks undermining support for a critical mechanism: use the funding incremental costs of overseas conflicts. we have to have a disciplined system for estimating the costs and funding the deployment of a trained, ready force. the administration has indicated that legislation implementing the majority's budget framework will be subject to veto. as secretary carter said, "this approach is clearly a road to nowhere." i say this because president obama has already made clear that he won't accept a budget that locks in sequestration going forward as this approach does ans he won't accept a budget that severs the vital link between our national security and our economic security. and when you talk about national security true national security

requires that non-d.o.d. departments and agencies also receive relief from b.c.a. caps. the pentagon simply cannot meet the complex set of national security challenges without the help of other governmental departments and agencies, including state justice and homeland security. in the armed services committee we have heard testimony on the essential role of other government agencies in ensuring our national defense remains strong. the defense department's share of the budget would surely grow if these agencies are not adequately funded as well. there is a simple biotic relationship between the department of defense and other civil departments and agencies that contribute to our national security. it has to be recognized that a truly whole of govern approach requires more than just a strong d.o.d. the b.c.a. caps are based on a misnomer that discretionary spending is divided into

security and non-security spending. but members need to be clear: essential national security functions are performed by governmental agencies and departments other than the defense department. according to the commander of u.s. southern command general kelley we do not and cannot do this mission alone. our strong partnerships with the u.s. interagency especially with the department of homeland security the u.s. coast guard the drug enforcement administration the federal bureau of investigation and the department thes of treasure and state are integral to our efforts to ensure the forward defense of the u.s. homeland." and as general mat tevment r said "if you don't fund the state department fully then i need to buy more amu in addition addition." his point is best illustrated in the administration's non-lines of effort to counter the so-called islamic state of iraq

and the levant or isil, which 83% of americans think is the number-one threat to the yaws. of the administration's nine lines of effort, only two, which are security and intelligence, fall squarely within the responsibility of the department of defense and intelligence community. the remaining seven elements of our counter-isil strategy rely heavily on our civilian dments and agencies. for example one supporting effective governance in iraq, no amount of military snns to the government of iraq will be effectively in countering the isil threat in iraq if the government does not govern in a more transparent and inclusive manner that gives sue knees hope that they will participate fully in iraq's future. we need our diplomatic and political experts at the state department to engage with sunni shia kurd community in iraq to

build a political unity among the iraqi people needed to defeat isil and that is not a strictly defense department initiative. we have to build partner capacity. the coalition is building the capabilities and capacity of our partners in the region to wage a long-term campaign against isil. while the efforts to build the capacity of the iraqi security forces are funded by the defense department the state department and usaid are also responsible for billions of dollars in similar activities across a broader spectrum of activities. under the republican planning, none of the state usaid programs will be plussed-up. they're unwillingness to address this gap is a threat to our nation's efforts to combat isil. we have to disrupt isil's finances. isil tion expansion has given it access to significant and diverse sources of funding.

countering isil's financing will require the state department and the treasury department to work with their foreign partners and banking sector to ensure that our counter-isil sanctions regime is implement and enforced. these state and treasury-led efforts are essentially deemed non-security activities under the b.c.a. caps, and under the republican approach, our efforts to disrupt the finances of isil may be hampered. it is also notable that the office of foreign asset control and the office of terrorism and financial intelligence in the treasury department are also categorized as non-security activities under the b.c.a. caps. the republican-funded strategy not only means that our counter-isil efforts will be hampered so, too will our efforts to impose effective sanctions against iran, sudan and individuals who support their activities will also be effected. we have to expose the true and

brutal nature of isil. our strategic communications command against isil requires a truly whole-of-government effort including voice of america usaid. the republican approach to funding our strategic communications strategy is part of the government plan, not a whole-of-government plan. we have to disrupt foreign fighters. they are the lifeblood of isil yet key components of the department of homeland security would be facing cuts under the republican budget proposals undermining efforts to disrupt the flow of foreign fighters to syria and iraq. while the efforts of our diplomats around the world prodding our foreign partners to pass laws to more effectively enforce the laws on their books, the efforts of the coalition to stem the flow of foreign fighters will never be successful. my colleague senator mccain, pointed out the huge refugee crisis. again, our first agency to

respond to refugees is usaid the united states agency for international development and other state department agencies. we won't be able to deal with that issue if those budget caps are imposed upon yous aid and other agencies -- usaid and other agencies. these refugee camps are one of the breeding grounds for the foreign fighters that flow back into the conflict zone. so unless we adopt a much broader approach and unless we do something other than simply plus up defense, we will not i think achieve true national security. of course, we have to protect the homeland. while a small portion of the department of homeland security is considered security-related, under the b.c.a., the vast majority of the department falls under the nonb.c.a. caps. this demonstrates the republican plan is a misnomer. it's an effort to play a game of smoke and mirrors with the

american public. the d.s. -- the agents of the department of homeland security that are on guard the d.e.a. agents in the drug enforcement agency that pick up intelligence about threats to the nation, all of them vitally contribute to our national security but they will be treated distinctly different if we adopt the approach that is inherent in this defense authorization bill. and i talked about the refugee crisis. virtually none of the activities that support our humanitarian efforts in the region are considered security activities. military commanders will routinely tell you that the effort to state usaid -- crude said, are -- usaid are critical. those refugees that are flooding into the countries adjacent to syria and to iraq, they have to be dealt with not only on

military grounds but also as potential sources of foreign fighters and that's going to require a whole of government approach not simply using o.c.o. to beef up our defense spending. taken together, the republican plan could compromise our broader campaign against isil and deprive significant elements of our government of the resources needed to do the job to protect the american people. the men and women of our military have volunteered to protect this nation and are overseas fighting for our ideals. including good education economic opportunity, safe communities. efforts to support all these goals will be hampered unless civilian departments and agency also receive relief from the b.c.a. caps. i had the privilege of commanding a paratrooper company in fort bragg, north carolina and including was to give, you

know people a chance in this country, not just to protect them from a foreign threat but to give them real opportunities here. and, by the way, our service members and their families rely on many of the services provided by nond.o.d. departments and agencies. for example, the department of education administers impact aid to school districts. the department of agriculture supports the school lunch program. the national institutes of health support lifesaving -reaching including by contributing to advance efforts on post traumatic stress and suicide prevention. the department of health and human services run medicare, providing health care for retirees and disabled individuals and medicaid which provides to parents including military parents with children with special needs. and failing to provide b.c.a. cap relief to non-d.o.d.

departments and agencies would shortchange veterans who receive employment services, transition assistance and housing and homeless support. -- homelessness support. not only is this sort of a function of failing to support potentially our service men through schooling and through other aspects our national security is also inherently tied to our economic security. secretary carter made this very clear. he said the approach being proposed disregards the enduring long-term connection between our nation's security and many other factors. factors like scientific r&d to keep up our technological edge, education to our all voluntary force and the future economic strength of our country. where will we get the soldiers of the future that have the skills and training and expertise if we're underinvesting in the basic education for all of our

citizens? my amendment would keep the pressure on for permanent solution to b.c.a. caps and sequestration by requiring that the b.c.a. caps be eliminated or increased in proportionality in equal amounts for security and nonsecurity spending before the additional o.c.o. funds are available for obligation or expenditure. let me again emphasize we are not taking away these funds. we are simply saying what i think makes a great deal of sense. until we develop an approach to b.c.a. that allows us to provide for a comprehensive defense of the nation and to invest in the economic health of the nation, then these funds will be reserved. once we do that, then automatically all the funding that is inherent in this bill becomes available to the department of defense. we have heard colleagues on both sides of the aisle talk for

years now about the need to resolve the b.c.a., to end sequestration. every uniformed service member that came before -- every chief of service said the number one priority is end sequestration end the b.c.a. this bill doesn't do it. it side steps the issue. we can no longer sidestep the issue. we have to engage on this issue. we have to move i think promptly and thoroughly and thoughtfully forward to resolve the b.c.a. the legislation i propose recognizes the need for these resources but recognizes the overarching issue unless we are able to effectively modify or eliminate the b.c.a., our comprehensive national security will be threatened, our economic progress will be threatened our aspirations for the country could be thwarted.

my amendment seeks to implement by the way a sense of the senate that's already in the bill and it clearly states sequestrationation relief should include equal defense and non-defense relief. we have made and i commend the chairman for this, a statement without an effective means of implementation but a statement an aspirational goal that we should fix b.c.a. and relieve defense and nondefense relief nondefense spending. i think that's an important statement but my amendment makes sure that we go further and provide an action forcing us to do this. i believe very strongly in this amendment. i think it's relevant for consideration on this bill. i believe it goes to the heart of the most important question

we face in the country today is how do we essentially provide for the defense the comprehensive defense of the nation how do we invest in our people so that we will continue to be strong, and i think if we do not provide this type of mechanism to start this discussion on the b.c.a. and hopefully promptly complete it, then we will be missing not only an historic opportunity we'll be locking ourselves into a room that will lead us -- leave us less secure in the future, less productive less strong as a nation. let me remind people the stated purpose of the bill is -- quote -- "to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for military activities of the department of defense." and we have to begin this appropriation process by recognizing that the b.c.a. will

not help us going forward and we must move to modify or repeal it. and with that, i would close simply by saying, again, if we continue these caps for -- it will harm our military readiness, our national defense should be based upon the needs the long-term needs they should be reflected in a transparent, forthright budget that puts the money in the base provides a contingency fund for trephinations overseas but doesn't turn things upside down and make our contingency funding really the heart of the bill. we have to work together, we have to make sure every federal agency can benefit because every federal agency contributes to the country. so i strongly urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment to begin this dialogue and move

forward the sooner the better. with that, mr. president i would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: first i have five unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. enzi: mr. president how did the budget fund defense? that's what we're talking about. the balanced budget resolution recently approved by congress recognizes the responsibility that the federal government has to defend the nation while recognizing the threat our overspending and growing debt pose to our national security. that's why the balanced budget approved by congress last month makes national defense a priority and provides for the maximum allowable defense funding under current law. let me say that again. the budget provides for the

maximum allowable defense funding under current law. but current law is a law that was signed by this president and provides vital support for our military personnel and their families the readiness of our armed services and the modernization of critical platforms. does anybody deny that this is a critical time? with the increasing number of threats around the world our total defense spending level should reflect our commitment to keeping america safe and ensuring our military personnel are prepared to tackle all challenges. while we have troops in harm's way, we need to do all we can to protect them. given the global threat environment, the funding approach taken by the senator from arizona and the armed services committee which was bipartisan ensures that the men and women of our armed services have the resources they need to confront an increasingly

complex and dangerous security environment. is sequestration a threat to our military? if appropriated at the levels provided by the ndaa, the national defense authorization act, ndaa, the defense budget would not face indiscriminate across-the-board boards known -- across-the-board cuts known as sequestration. people have a chance to amend the needs right now. if they think there is something in there that isn't needed, they can amended. they can try to amend it. at least there would be justification for what there was. this bill puts us on a path to spend $612 billion on defense this year. this is the same overall amount that was requested by the president earlier this year. numerous officials at the pentagon have made it clear that they see this funding level as the bare minimum budget needed

to execute our defense strategy. so why are some senators concerned about the level of budgetary resources this bill provides the department of defense? they simply do not like the use of overseas contingency operations funding o.c.o. that's important to note that those not familiar with the budget control act -- that's not the budget, that's the budget control act -- was passed with bipartisan support and signed into law by president obama back in august, 2011. it established a discretionary spending cap but also allowed for certain cap adjustments. the b.c.a. caps can be adjus for emergencies disasters program integrity initiatives and o.c.o. yes, that's in the budget control act, not the budget, but the budget control act passed in august, 2011 and signed by president obama. those are the four ways that you can adjust the budget caps

without forcing into sequestration. now, in the case of o.c.o. overseas contingency operations funding both congress and the president have to agree that the funding should be designated in that manner. therefore, the o.c.o. funding in this bill will only occur if congress appropriates it and the president agrees to it in the future. i would hope when the president said this is the overall level of funding they needed for defense that they meant it. but only time and the appropriations process will tell. did the budget account for o.c.o. spending? while there's no requirement to offset o.c.o. spending, when we address the issue in our budget resolution we accounted for every single dollar of ocoee aculled would be -- of ocoee assumed would be spent -- o.c.o. we assumed would be spent.

the budget still met its goal of balancing within ten years. we accounted for every single dollar of o.c.o. that we assumed would be spent. even with these ohio levels, the budget llings -- even with these o.c.o. levels, the budget resolution still met its goal. this will enshould you are that we can get our nation's fiscal year house in order while providing the resources needed for national defense. unfortunately, the concern expressed over providing o.c.o. funding doesn't seem to be centered on the fiscal concerns because even most critics support the need for more defense money. no their concerns are based on the demand to increase non-defense discretionary spending on a dollar-for-dollar basis with defense spending. but the only way to do this in the short term is by raising tastles on hardworking american

families. defense is making its case and has made its case, non-defense has not. do we really need to increase the caps? if we want to increase non-defense spending, congress should take a closer look at what we are actually funding. last year we provided nearly $2939.5 billion for more than 260 authorizations that have expired. yes, we have 260 authorizations. that's where congress say, this is what we ought to be spending our money on. and they expired and we're still spending the money on them. $293.5 billion a year. usually we talk about over ten years here. that would practically balance the budget by itself over a ten-year period. those are programs that we need to take a look at. those are programs that have expired. some of those programs expired

as long ago as 1983. but we're still spending money on them every year. that means we've been paying for some of these expired programs for more than 30 years. it is not just the length of time that these programs have overstayed their we will com. the funds we allocate every year are more than what the law called for when passed. in some cases that means we are spndzing as much as -- spending as much as four times what the bill allowed. savings usually are found in the spending details but congress hasn't examined the details in some time, except on defense. we do the defense authorization every year. these others, well, i mentioned one that expired in 1983, some in 1987. i mentioned it's 260 authorizations. it affects 1,200 programs. do you think in 1,200 programs we couldn't find $38 billion to

match what we're doing with defense? we ought to be ashamed if we can't. so it's time congress took a look at these programs and decide if they're even worth funding anymore. after all a project not worth doing well should not be worth doing at all. but how would committees know if they haven't looked at these programs in years? how would they know if they don't have a way to measure ow well the programs are working? were defense and non-defense spending treated equally under the b.c.a., under the budget caps? the insistence of any change be based on a dollar-for dollar increase fails to take into account treatment each took under the budget caps, the b.c.a. defense spending, which makes you up less than one-fifth of all government spending, received half of the reductions

in the b.c.a. defense spending also faced more budgetary pressure than non-defense spending because it's largely discretionary. non-defense spending was able to distribute its b.c.a. reductions over a larger portion of mandatory programs. that provides a fudge factor. the continued insistence on tying both defense and non-defense spending together has left only the approach taken by this bill to defend -- to fund the defense at the president's level. we know from the administration that the president's advisors are recommending he veto this bill. we also know that some of my colleagues are considering blocking appropriations bills this year to force a government shutdown. every bill should stand on its own for justification. no one is arguing the need for national defense. but what they're actually arguing is the need for

non-defense increases. this is an attempt to leverage defense programming to get non-defense, which i mentioned the 260 programs, $293.5 billion a year that have expired. so they want this o.c.o. to be replaced with a deal. what we're supposed to do around here is legislate not deal-make. but that's what's being proposed. let's make a deal. now, if they step back and look at the facts late out here today, hopefully they can move away from this brinksmanship appeared realize the path they're on only leads to more youruncertainty for the men and women in our armed forces. strengthening our national defense and providing for the brave mism our military should be something that both -- men and women of our military should be something that both sides can agree on. what's the future of the b.c.a. caps? it is time that both parties get serious about addressing our nation's chronic overspending.

we know that some on both sides want the caps changed but at what price for our nation and the hardworking taxpayers? without any changes to the b.c.a. structure just raising these budget caps without increasing the debt in the short term would require increasing taxes. that's why we asked for the extra year to be able to work on this whole thing. if congress is serious about addressing the challenges of the budget control act it has to first start by tackling its addiction to overspending. and once again become good fiscal stewards of the taxes paid by etch 00 and every hardworking american. of course, if the administration would stop overregulating the economy would grow and in a short time we'd have more revenue without raising taxes. and, yes that's what both the congressional budget office and the office of management and budget -- one works for congress an one works for the president -- said that if we could just

raise the economy by 1% in a year c.b.o. said that would provide $300 billion. the president's office says that would provide $400 billion in taxes. we're receiving more tax revenue now than we have in the history of the united states. but we spend more than that. of the amounts that we get to makes a decision on, we're spending almost 50% more than what we take in. we can't continue to $that. we can't continue to afford the interest on the debt if we keep doing that. americans are working harder than ever to make ends meet. shouldn't their elected officials be doing the same thing? by tackling these issues honestly and directly, we can helpen sure that our nation is safe and secure by investing in america's armed forces while also maintaining fiscal discipline. on a related note, the senate budget committee has produced an in-depth analysis of the o.c.o. funding system as part of its june bulletin published today.

people interested in learning more can go to budget.senate.gov or contact on twitter at@budget bulletin. many of the service men and servicewomen returning from faraway battlefields -- vietnam or any other place of conflict -- have seen horrible, unspeakable things. they've been courageous in the face of death and destruction. some gave up a relatively easy, safe life to travel far from home and fight for what we as a nation believe the world should be or could be someday. that kind of commitment doesn't come without pain or sacrifice. immense pain and sacrifice in some cases. none of that has anything to do with politics. politics is the arena of our elected leaders not our troops. and it's both necessary and

patriotic for us as voters to evaluate that's leaders' decisions and actions and speak out against the ones we disagree with. that's democracy in dissent. but our troops are our representatives on the growfnltdz we must not use our vowntsed system of democracy as a tool to inflict pain on this brave group of people. they're not obligated to support our leaders' political ideologies anymore than the rest of us. but uniquely they have made it their responsibility to represent our treasured way of life at home and abroad in pursuit of a better, more peaceful world. and after they do that, they do are due their thanks from a grateful nation. that's how it was in the 1970's. that's how it is now. we must make it our responsibility to ensure that this is the way it always will be. we have a crucial decision to make on funding our national defense. i don't think that it should be

held hostage to other budget concerns. each of those should stand on their own. each of those should review all of the things under their jurisdiction. i ask for you to defeat the amendment. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: first i want to thank my friend from wyoming for his remarks. i don't always agree with him but he is always sincere and thoughtful an puts every effort into coming into a decision that he believes is right. we appreciate that very much. i also want to thank my colleague from rhode island, our ranking member on armed services who has laid out in very careful terms why the amendment, the reed amendment is so important and i want to thank him. he has also, like my friend from wyoming, been assiduous diligent careful in his work on the armed services committee.

and i thank him for offering this amendment. now, mr. president we've come to the floor today with a very simple message for our republican colleagues, and it's articulated in this amendment. if you want to make america strong by replacing the harsh and arbitrary automatic cuts in this budget, as we do, then you have to do it in a way that makes sure we'll have a strong military abroad and the things we need to be strong and secure at home as well. that means equally replacing cuts to both defense and domestic budgets. a dplar dollar for defense a dollar for the middle class in hopes they can raise their income levels and it can be easier for others who are not yet in the middle class to reach. that's what the amendment would require. the truth is, the way the republicans have put this bill together signals a poor aprofess to both major -- approach to both major areas of our budget. in locks in the sequestration cuts for our men and women in uniform. instead of using the o.c.o.,

essentially a wartime account as a one-time gimmick to make up or shortfalls. that is a bad idea. using the o.c.o. account to pay for our troops, maintain and operate our military, or purchase weapons that will keep us safe is a terrible mistake. why is that? it's one-year funding. you have to do a plan for three years. you have to build a submarine that takes four or five years. i talk to defense contractors phs i talk to military leaders. they can't do it a year at a time t doesn't make sense. our military families need stability and support. they need to know that programs that benefit them -- suicide prevention sexual assault -- will be fully funded when other programs come back into the the budget in future years. our military brass needs to know that the weapon systems they're relying on four years from now but being paid out of o.c.o.

this year can be funded and finished. so our military, mr. president doesn't serve budget gimmicks. they deserve real support. what my friends on the other side of the aisle have done with this o.c.o. increase is a budgetary sleight of hand. a- halfhearted attempt to fund the defense department while leaving key middle-class programs behind. hardworking families must continue to feel the harsh cuts imposed by sequestration. that's a double standard because we need both for a strong america. we need a strong military and we need a strong middle class. and to choose one over the other and do it by budgetary sleight of hand is nothing anyone can be proud of, in my opinion mr. president. so regardless of what happens with ndaa this month one thing should be absolutely clear to my republican friends: and i see our ranking member of appropriations here who has led

this fight. democrats will not vote to put a defense appropriations bill on the floor that uses accounting trickery or budgetary gimmicks to fund our troops. we will not vote to proceed to the defense appropriations bill or any appropriations bill until our colleagues from the other side of the aisle have sat down at the table and figured out with us how we're going to properly fund the defense department and the key priorities that help families, fuel economic growth, in short keeping us safe and strong both at home and abrought. we simply cannot and will not move forward with one acceptable bill at a time on the a -- an the appropriations side until we're able to sit down and reach an agreement that replaces cuts equally for our militaryaged domestic needs. this amendment requires that balance. that's why i salute the ranking member of the armed services

committee for putting it together. it says the extra money in o.c.o. cannot be used unless we give equal or greater relief to programs that help the middle class. if my friends on the other side of the aisle are serious about escaping the senseless obtusive budget cuts imposed by the sequestration and their use of o.c.o. admittedly a gimmick, they know that's the case we have to go above sequestration, if they continue to use these obtuse budget cuts imposed by the sequestration for military and average families, they will wholeheartedly support the jack reed amendment. thank you mr. president, and i yield the floor. before i yield the floor i ask unanimous consent that kathleen perry, a fellow in my office, be granted the privileges of the floor during the consideration of h.r. 1735 the defense authorization bill. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland.

ms. mikulski: thank you very much mr. president. today i rise in support of the amendment offered by the senator from rhode island, senator jack reed. characteristic of him, it is a thoughtful solution to a very serious problem related to the funding of our national security needs. i'd like to support and salute senator reed for his outstanding job. many don't realize that senator jack reed is a graduate of west point, served in the united states military, brought that considerable background to additional public service both in the house and now in the united states senate, he is our ranking member on the defense authorization committee and also serves in a great capacity in the defense appropriations committee. now, let's talk about the reed

amendment and the funding for the department of defense. i want to be very clear. i do want to support funding for the national security of the united states of america. we take an oath to defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and we must uphold that oath not only with lip service but with real money in the real check federal checkbook. and we need to do it in a way that doesn't use gimmicks or smoke and mirrors to end sequestration or -- sequester or do a finesse or a shell deal behind the budget caps. now, remember, we passed a bill that does have significant budget caps, but the way to deal with our problem is not to cap the department of defense but to be honest about what it takes to fund national security. the reed amendment does that. it makes clear that the

department of defense should receive $38 billion but in its base budget to take care of the troops to protect the troops while they protect us to make sure they have the right gear, the right of equipment the right technology, and also the right intelligence to be able to do it. it also looks out for military families it does what we need to do. but only when there is a new budget agreement that increases the defense budget as well as the budget for domestic programs will we be able to solve the problem that is facing us. now, what our generals have told us we cannot meet our defense needs with the current budget caps. they also say senator, -- and this is general dempsey this is general odierno who spoke

saturday at the vice president's son's funeral -- these men who have devoted their life to having the best defense in the world, they say don't give us sequester. instead of trying to figure out terrorism, we have to fight the stupidity of congress. they don't use those words i'm using those words. we we instituted sequester, it was a technique to force us to make tough decisions. we keep hiding behind the technique. we need to change that. the bill that we have now raised funding for something called the overseas contingency fund by $38 billion. but it uses the fund -- but it uses it to fund activities that should be in the base bill rather than the war costs it was intended for. essentially it's a budget gimmick. what is the overseas contingency fund? it was meant to be a line item

where we could actually see what war cost us. in afghanistan and iraq, it was kind of commingled through a lot of the other things related to defense but we didn't know the actual cost of the war. o.c.o. is meant for war. it is not meant to be a way to avoid the budget caps. instead of just raising the caps and funding d.o.d. at the needed level, this bill uses this gimmick, but anything about it is really not in the national interest. our military leaders tell us, number one get rid of sequester, and number two you must increase the base bill. defense budgeting cannot be done on a year-to-year basis. it must be multiyear because it's planning, it's procurement for them to have the best weapons systems. it is the recruitment, training

and sustaining of military and their personnel needs. defense secretary ash carter said our defense industry partners need stability a long-term plan, and not crisis-by-crisis-by-crisis. general allen army vice chief of staff o.c.o. does not give you the predictable funding to plan the force that we need. i want to make another point. the defense of the united states of america doesn't lie only with d.o.d. that's our war fighting machine. but we have other programs that are related to national security that come out of domestic discretionary spending that are shortchanged and are shrinking and quite frankly i'm concerned about it. what am i talking about? in order to have national security you need to have a state department. you need to have a state department to do the kind of

work that involves diplomacy that provides -- involves working with nation around the world on the needs of these nations and also to engage in important negotiations like we have now on the iran nuclear that's not done by jeopardies, that's done by diplomats. you need to have a department of state. when we looked at what happened in benghazi where there's so much focus on this, while they're focusing on -- and we should focus on benghazi but we appropriators, mr. president focus on embassy security. embassy security is funded through the department of state, and funded by discretionary spending. if you want to protect americans overseas you've got to have embassy security. you've got to have a department of state. then we have the department of homeland security. look at all the cyber attacks on

us right this minute. we need to have a cyber component to defense but we need the cyber defense strategy at the department of -- even insurance programs are being hacked people in the united states of america are having important information about their health records their social security numbers and so on being stolen. we need to have a robust department of homeland security. they have a program called einstein that's supposed to do it. but we don't have to be einsteins to know in order to protect america you also have to protect the department of homeland security. and then, of course there's promises made and promises kept. there is the subcommittee on military construction and veterans' affairs. we must fund our promises made to our veterans. that's out of discretionary

spending. that's not out of defense. but the infrastructure for our military our military bases here in our own country come out of military construction. i don't want to sound like i'm defending government programs. that's not what i'm here to do. i'm here to defend the nation and defend it the right way. we need to be able to put money in the federal checkbook that funds our department of defense without gimmicks, without sleight of hands without finessing or playing dodge ball. we've got to play hard ball with the terrorists and others who have predatory intent against the united states of america. we've got to be team u.s.a., not only on the sports fields but this playing field right here on the floor of congress. let's work together. let's get a new budget agreement. let's solve the problems, let's end sequester let's work together to be able to do it. and i believe a big step forward

will be supporting the amendment offered by tax reform rhode island senator jack reed. i really ask in the interest of our national security, we vote for reed, we go to the budget -- let's go to the negotiating table let's come up with a real framework to fund the compelling needs of our nation and let's do it team u.s.a. mr. president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. mr. president? the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands in recess until

>> later today the senate foreign relations committee considers a bill that would authorize state department operations for fiscal 2016 and a bill that would require the secretary of state report to congress on war crimes in series. live coverage on c-span3 at 2:30 p.m. eastern. the house rules committee is meeting at 5 p.m. to consider rules for the 2016 defense appropriations bill and agriculture labeling of meat that originates abroad. live coverage as also on c-span3. next president obama talks to the catholic health association about the future of health care in the impact the affordable care act to set on consumer protections in the economy. he spoke to the group this morning. [cheers and applause]

>> okay. good morning. [laughter] >> are you ready for the second hundred years? i want you to know that we are so pleased to introduce this next speaker for our centennial event. [laughter] that's the queen of understatements. as you know how long we have wanted and waited for a health care system that treats everybody with dignity and many presidents tried and failed, but not president obama. [cheers and applause] right now as we gather, at least

16 million previously uninsured americans have health and economic security, including so many who were so very, very vulnerable and are now getting coverage for the first time. the affordable care act -- [applause] -- took the first step for guaranteed health care for everyone in our great nation. many people and groups worked hard for this outcome, including so many of you in the audience today. the effort took leadership creativity perseverance quality is the president demonstrated again and again and again to move health reform legislation into legislative language into coverage people could count on. it has been my privilege to work with the president and his team over the past seven years with

our deep gratitude for his leadership and concern for the well being of all americans. it is my honor and pleasure now to introduce the president of the united states of america barack obama. [cheers and applause] >> thank you. thank you so much. thank you. thank you so much. everybody please have a seat. thank you so much. well, i don't know whether this is appropriate but i just told carol i love for. on a big stage last night it is true though -- ideal. she's just, just wonderful. her dedication to doing god's

work here on earth commitment to serving the least of these for steadiness, her strength her steadfast voice have been an inspiration to me. we would not have gotten the affordable care act had not been for her. of what you think the entire catholic health association -- [cheers and applause] -- for the incredible work that you do. and it's true i just love -- i'm just saying. it is an honor to join you on your 101st in a bring hope and healing to so many. i want to acknowledge dignity health and its ceo, lloyd dean honored by the capital's association last night for his outstanding support of our efforts to improve health care in america. he has been a great friend. i want to thank a great provider

of care that also recently raised its minimum wage. [applause] i want to thank, want to thank secretary burwell and the members of the congress who are here today because they have been obviously doing extraordinary work. [applause] my first job in in chicago when i moved after college he worked as a community organizer. my first job was funded by the campaign for human development come and anti-poverty initiative of the catholic church. and my first office was at holy rosary church on the southside of chicago across from palmer park. clapping there. she knows holy rosary. [laughter] and a task was to work with

parishes and neighbors and faith and community leaders to bring low income people together to stitch neighborhoods together. clergy and lay people. and the work was hard and there were times where the is disputing that we have plenty of setbacks. they were times when i felt like quitting, whether i wondered if the path i have chosen was too hard. but despite these challenges i somehow kindness and compassion and faith can change the part of people's lives. and i saw the power of faith issued believe that every human being made in the image of god deserves to live in dignity. that all children, no matter who they are or where they come from or how much money they were born into out to have the opportunity to achieve their god-given potential. -- ought to achieve -- that we

are all called in the words of his holiness, pope francis to satisfy the demands of justice fairness and respect for every human being. and at the time when i just moved to chicago, the cardinals there was cardinal bernadine, an extraordinary man and he understood that part of that commitment part of that commitment to the dignity of every human being also meant that we had tickets about the health of every human being. and he articulated that it is church articulated that as we moved at the state level in the illinois state legislature to advance the proposition that health care is not a privilege it is a right.

and that believe this at the heart of the catholic health association's mission. for decades your member hospitals have been on the frontlines often serving the marginalized, the vulgar and the sick and the uninsured -- vulnerable. that believe is why we came together more than five years ago to reform our health care system, to guarantee that every american has access to quality affordable care. so i'm here today to say thank you for your tireless efforts to make health reform a reality. without your commitment and compassionate care, without your moral force we would not have succeeded. we wouldn't have -- we would not have succeeded had it not been for you. [applause] and the foundation you have laid. [applause]

and pursuing health care reform wasn't about making good on a campaign promise for me. it was remember in the wake of an economic crisis with a very human toll. and it was integral to restoring the basic promise of america the notion that in this country if you work hard and take responsibility you can get ahead. you can make it if you try. everything we've done these past six and if used to rebuild our economy on a new foundation from rescuing and retooling our industry to reform our schools to rethinking the way we produce and use energy, to reducing our deficit, all of it has been in pursuit of that one goal, creating opportunity for all people. and health care reform was a critical part of that effort. for decades a major barrier, to economic opportunity was our broken health care system. it exposed working families to the insecurities of a changing

economy. sattel our businesses with skyrocketing costs that make it hard to higher or pay a good wage. that threaten our entire nations long-term prosperity. was the primary driver of our deficits. and for hospitals like yours, the fact that so many people didn't have basic care meant you were scrambling and scratching every single day to try to figure out how do we keep our doors open. leaders from teddy roosevelt to teddy kennedy wanted reform. for as long as there were americans who could not afford decent health care come as long as there were people had to choose between paying for medicine or paying the rent as long as they repaired to to figure out whether they could sell or barter pay for child treatment, just a few much more than beg for god's mercy to make it work in time as long as

those things were happening america was not living up to our highest ideals. and that's why providers and faith leaders like you called for expanding access to affordable care. every day you saw the very personal suffering of those who go without. and it seemed like an insurmountable challenge. every time there was enough political will to alleviate the suffering of reform the health care system whether it was under democratic presidents or republican presidents, even special interests are raining and keeping the status quo in place -- haranguing. and each year the task without reform, the stakes kept getting harder by the time i took office thousands of americans were losing their health insurance every single day. many people die each of because they didn't have health

insurance. many families who thought they had covered were driven into bankruptcy by out of pocket costs. tens of millions of our fellow citizens have no coverage at all in this comp the wealthiest, the most powerful nation on earth. and despite being the only advanced begun in the world without universal health care our health care costs grew to be the most expensive in the world with no slowing insight. and that trend strength the budgets of families and businesses and our government. and so we determined that we could not keep taking that can down the road any longer. we could not leave that problem for another generation to solve or another generation after that. and remember this was not easy. [laughter] there were those who thought health care reform was too messy and too complicated and too politically risky. i had pollsters showing me stuff, and 85% of folks at any

given time had health care so they were not necessary incentivized to support it. you could scare the heck out of them about even if they work and are satisfied with existing system, that some of the would be terrible to change it. all kinds of warning signs about how tough it is wise bad politics. but for every politician and pundit who said we should wait, why rush barely a day went by where i didn't hear of hard-working americans who didn't have a moment left to lose. these were men and women from all backgrounds, all walks of life, all races, all faiths come in big cities, small towns, red states blue states middle-class families with coverage that turned out not to be there for them when they needed it. moms and dads desperately seeking care for a child with chronic illness only to be told no, again and again. or fearful as their child got

older, what was their future going to be? if they were not going to go to get insurance once they left the house. small business owners forced to choose between ensuring their employees and keeping the open sign hanging in the window. and every one of these stories tug at me in a personal way because i spoke about seeing my mom worried about how she's going to deal with her finances when she got very sick. and i was reminded of the few that michele and i felt when sasha was a few months old we had a race to the hospital the emerging -- the emergency room learned she had meningitis. that we can't only because we had a wonderful pediatrician -- that we can't -- and regular care. never felt so scared are helpless in my life. we were fortunate enough to good health insurance and i remember looking at the emergency room and 50 what about the parents who are not that lucky but what about the pair took it with a

built in $20,000 or $30,000 they have no ideas how to pay for them. what about those parents with kids who have a chronic illness like asthma and it keep going back to the emergency room because they don't have a regular doctor, the bills never stop coming. who is going to stand up for them? behind every single story with -- what kind of country do we want to be? are we a country that's defined by values that say access to health care is a commodity awarded do with the highest bidders? or by the values as a health is a fundamental right? the we believe that what you starts to determine how far you go or do we believe and in the greatest nation on earth everybody deserves the opportunity to make to make of their lives what they will? the rugged individualism that defined america has always been bound by a shared set of values

-- shared set of values. and enduring sense that we're in this together. that america is not a place where we simply turn away from the sick or turn our backs on the tired the poor the huddled masses. it's a place sustained by the idea i am my brother's keeper i am my sisters keeper, that we have an obligation to put ourselves in our neighbors issues agency each other's common humanity. so after a century of talk after decades of trying, after a year of sustained debate we finally made health care reform a reality here in america. [applause] >> and this fight the constant doom and gloom predictions the

unbending chicken little warning -- unending -- somehow it would lead to the end of the freedom the end of the american way of life. low and behold it did not happen. not as this came to pass. in fact, a lot of ways to affordable care act worked out better than some of us anticipated. nearly one in three uninsured americans have already been covered, more than 16 million people driving our uninsured rate to its lowest level ever. ever. [applause] on top of that tens of millions will enjoy new protections with the coverage that they've already gone. 85% who had health insurance, they may not know that they have a better deal now than they did but they do.

.. that's real, too. employer premiums are rising at a rate to the lowest on record. the average family premium is $1800 lower today than it

would've been hard trends over the decade before the aca past continued. in the years to come countless americans who can now buy plants that are affordable on the competitive marketplace will be free to chase their own ideas, knowing they'll be able to buy health insurance. that security won't just be there for us. it will be there for our kids as they go through life. when they graduate from college they look for the first job and stay on our plans until they're 26. they no longer count against them. when they strike out on the run to start a business, they will still be able to get coverage. until they retire into a medicare that has cheaper prescription drugs and wellness visit to make sure they stay

home. and while we were told again and again that obamacare would be a job killer amazingly enough some critics still peddle the notion it turns out in reality americans experience 63 straight months of private-sector job growth, history and started the monthly pass the affordable care act. [applause] the longest private-sector job growth on record. it adds up to 12.6 million new jobs. so the critics stubbornly ignore reality and reality thursday self-employed single mom of three who couldn't afford health insurance until health reform passage qualified for medicaid and her state and she was able to get a but detected early stage breast cancer and may have saved her life. that is the reality.

not the mythology. in reality there are parents whose autistic son couldn't speak even with health insurance they struggle to pay for his treatment that health reform made a secondary plan that covered therapy for their son and today that little boy can tell his parents he loves them. that is the reality. [applause] in reality there is a self-employed barber from tennessee who happens to be a republican who couldn't afford health insurance until our marketplace open up and open up and let the about a plan he went to the docs are and what diagnosed with esophageal cancer in the old days about coverage he wouldn't have known he was sick. today he is now cancer free. so five years then, what we talk about is no longer just a theory. this is amazing just about

affordable care after obamacare. rumors that folks try to sustain. there is the reality that people on the ground day today are asked. mean. their lives are better. this is now part of the fabric of how we care for one another. this is health care in america which is why once you get outside of washington and leave behind the chatter in the politics americans support the new reality when he talked to people who actually aren't rolled in a new marketplace plan the vast majority like their coverage. the vast majority are satisfied with doctors and hospitals and satisfied with their premiums. they like their reality. that doesn't mean we don't have more work to do. we know we've got more work to do. like any serious attempt to

change, the more disruptions in the rollout, policies he can put in place to make health care work even better. secretary burwell talking about all the things we have to do around the delivery system to perform. we have to protect the coverage that people have now ensign more people. we need more governors and state legislators to expand medicaid which is an essential part of the architecture of the overall plan. we have to continue to improve the quality of care and we know he can bring down costs. none of this is going to be easy. nobody suggests him our health care system is perfect as a consequence of the law being passed. but it is serving so many more people so much better. and we are not going to go backwards. i have to say the ceaseless

endless partisan attempts to roll back progress. i understood folks being skeptical or worried before the law passed and there was no reality they are to examine. once you see millions of people having health care once you see other bad things ever predict it didn't happen, and you think it would be time to move on. let's figure out how to make it better. it seems cynical to want to take coverage away from millions of people to take care away from the people who needed no spirit to punish millions of higher cost of care and unravel what has been woven into the fabric of america. that kind of cynicism flies in the face of our history. our history is one of each generation striving to do better and be better than the last.

just as we'll never go back to a time when seniors are left to languish in poverty or not have any health insurance in their golden years there is a generation that didn't have the guarantee of health care. we are not going to go back to a time when citizens can be denied coverage because they prayed the same condition. when tens of millions of people couldn't afford decent affordable care, that was in a better america. that is not freedom. the freedom to languish in illness or to be bankrupt because somebody in your family get sick. that is not how we are. that is not what we are about. deborah lee at pennsylvania knows that. it was so severe that it put her in a wheelchair. she couldn't stand or walk at all.

and was in constant pain. through no fault of her own. the twists and turns of life. without health insurance to get treatment seemed as though she might never again live a life that was full. deborah enrolled in affordable health coverage, was able to have surgery to replace her knees. she is back on her feet, walks her dog's gifts were doctors appointment. cooking, exercising, regaining her health. she couldn't be here today but she recently wrote a mob of may has been my goal can hold hands and hold hands at the corner world for me. just walking and holding hands. something that one of our fellow americans for years could not do. everyday miracles happen in your hospitals. they're remaking deborah's world

didn't require a miracle. it just required access to some thing every american has a right to expect, which is health care coverage. while there are outcomes that we can calculate and enumerate the number of newly insured families, number of lives saved and those numbers all add up to success in the reform effort. but also outcomes that are harder to calculate. in the tally of pain and tragedy that has been averted but also in the security of a parent who can afford to take her kids to the dock your forget to preventive care she needs her the freedom of a freedom of the notch partner has started an adventure for the joy of a wife who thought she would never again taker has been tanned and go for a while. in the end that is why you do what you do.

it is not what this is all about? is there any greater measure of life and liberty and pursuit of happiness than the simple pleasures afforded because you have good health and you have some security. more than five years ago i said while i was not the first president to take up this cause i was determined to be the last. and now it is up to all of us as citizens in the room and across the country to continue to help make the right to health care a reality for all americans. if we keep faith with one another to create opportunity for everybody who strive sort come in the words of senator ted kennedy, the dream will be fulfilled for this generation and preserved an enlarged for generations to come. thank you. god bless you all.

thank you so much. [applause] ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

>> mr. president, as we consider the amendment to the senator from rhode island i would like to again remind my colleagues that the world is in turmoil. the world has never seen greater crises since the end of world war ii according to people as well respect to dr. kissinger. and i repeat my assertion that oco was not the right or best way to do business. the worst way to do business is to have an authorization that will eliminate our ability to defend this nation and the men and women who survey. i urge my colleagues to read from this weekend's "new york

times." the global struggle to respond to the worst refugee crisis in generation. 11 million people were uprooted by violence last year most propelled by conflict in syria, iraq, ukraine and afghanistan. the extreme poverty have pushed tens of thousands out of parts of sub-saharan africa and southeast asia. the worst migration crisis since world war ii according to united nations. that is what is going on in the world and we are worried about how we will defend the nation. with priorities that are grammatically screwed, screwed and unfair. the islamic state attacks government not face on the western fringe of bag dad. this is yesterday. three militants described --

disguised military uniform code of the state people in the government office in western iraq on twos jay claimed by the islamic day. u.s. army's main website is down in this era of electronic army is claiming credit. this year in electronic army have the website for the u.s. army associated with the activist group claimed monday. the site was down in the afternoon while screenshots posted on the social map work with messages of support by bush are -- bashar assad. that was supposed june 8th at 4:53 p.m. the world islamic state seizes power plant near libyan city of

sir. islamic state militants have seized the power plant waste to the libyan city which applied parts of the country with electricity and a military source said on tuesday. the plant was taken islamic state said in a message on social media adding the capture of the plants meant the militants had driven their enemies out of the entire city. libya descending into chaos and a safe -- a safe extending its bets. libyan gains may offer a base for new attacks. as the imam mcstay scores victories in syria and iraq, its affiliates in libya is also on the offensive, consolidating control of moammar gadhafi's

former hometown and staging an attack on a major city ms. radha, the islamic state growth could further destabilize the country suffering from a devastating civil war libya could offer the extreme is the new base from which the logitech software and north africa. "washington post." fox news, june 9th isis captures in u.s. official confirms. the isis terror group kidnaps eight year christians from a caravan in libya last week a u.s. defense official come armed on monday. what is at stake in ukraine if russia continues its onslaught? ukraine is fighting the war into france. the one you see on television is taking place in the east of our

country where thousands of russian troops are engaged in an armed aggression against ukraine's territorial integrity including the illegal annex lei shen of crimea ap is important by the prime minister of ukraine. "the wall street journal" president obama admits the anti-issa strategy isn't complete. president obama to -- president obama doesn't get many press conferences. the most revealing moment. but mrs. dancer monday in austria to a question about iraq. destroy obama offer to start an explanation for why the war against the islamic state isn't going so well. the strategy still is nothing running. we don't get a complete strategy

because it requires commitments as well about how the training takes place and they are not yet worked out. we still do not have a strategy to counter the islamic state which took control of most low 80 years ago and beheaded two americans for all the world to see last summer. mr. obama announced his anti-issa strategy in a september speech promising to degrade and destroy nine months later here we are. isis -- it occurs in the north about the lack of weapons to

forestall of a major isis assault. and now mr. obama tells us the training of the iraqis is barely underway. members only -- let me i will skip through some of these because i know that my colleagues are waiting to speak. associated press act did this come this year in air raid kills 49 in northwestern village. government airstrikes on a northwestern syrian village they killed at least 49 people last survivors screaming in anguish as they pull bodies from the rebel according to activists and videos of the chaotic aftermath. the local coordinating committees had two air raids on

the village in the province killed 16 people and wounded others that they serve suburban area to a code 49 people including six children. the death toll could rise as some people are still missing. the hootie rabbo's fire scud missile into yemen and saudi arabia. that's "the associated press" june 6. iran spends billions to prop up assad. iran is spending billions of dollars a year to prop up the syrian dictator bashar assad according to the u.n. envoy to syria and other outside experts. the estimates are far higher than what barack obama administration busy negotiate a nuclear deal has implied iran

spends on its policy to destabilize the middle east. i would, by the way, add to that that iranians are basically taking over cabinet positions in the bashar assad government. june 5th report china dispatching surveillance vessels off hawaii. china has begun dispatching surveillance vessels off the coast of hawaii and response to the navy's monitoring act committees of disputed islands in the south china sea. the purported surveillance comes on the heels of race tensions between china and the united states late last month. "financial times," june 7th. u.s. struggles for a strategy to contain china island building. china staffers to dredge new land on remote south china sea has left the u.s. struggling to come up with a response.

washington chinese land creation has helped make allies and former adversaries now fearful of the literary domination by an assertive china. the latest example was a trip to vietnam last week by ashton carter, the u.s. defense secretary with the chalk off to the vietnamese navy. but there's a limit to how far countries in the region are going to present a united front to china which has reclaimed 2000 acres of land in the last 18 months far outstripping other claimants combined according to mr. carter. the obama administration is also ensured a strong wish to push back against what u.s. officials see as a long-term chinese plan to control the region's waters. finally actually it does say is a piece from "politico" today.

actually the united states does have a strategy to fight the islamic state department folks. the president was referring to a specific plan to impose the training and equipping of iraqi security forces and the pentagon is working on the plan right now. absolutely we have a strategy kirby said tuesday on msnbc's morning joe. mr. president, i would be overjoyed to have that plan, a complete strategy and the plan presented to the congress and the american people. it would be a wonderful event. the fact is they have no strategy and they have no policy in the world is on fire and here we are wanting to try to pass an amendment which would deprive the men and women serving their means and wherewithal to defend this nation.

i hope my colleagues will strongly reject the amendment that will be pending before this body. mr. president, i yield the floor. >> mr. president. >> senator from rhode island. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would ask unanimous consent to have senator mikulski, senator merkley senator leahy senator donnelly, senator boxer, senator is senator booker senator feinstein, senator cardin senator klobuchar and senator peters as cosponsors to read amendment 15212 h.r. 1735. >> without objection. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to discuss my amendment 1521 to thank all funding about $59 billion in the account for overseas contingency operations

until budget caps-on defense and nondefense have been raised. my amendment specifically recognizes the need for the resources but it objects the way the oco fund is being used as a way to circumvent the budget control act and it does so i think i'm very sound ground but over the long run would be for the department of defense and everyone engaged in defense in the united states. mr. president, we vote on many issues in the senate and while the issues are important, occasionally we must face an issue that clearly could change the cost of our nation. because the consequence of our actions are often not known for years the votes may be very difficult when taken, that they are very very important. .. from both parties voted to go to war in

iraq. i did not vote in favor of the war. in fact, i spoke against it. and i think the outcome could have been very different back then if we had more of a debate about the true cost and the long-term cost to thousands of lives lost, the countless wounded, some with invisible scars if we thought the united states would be on a war footing for over a decade and american taxpayers would be on the hook for trillions of dollars and that we would perhaps even contribute by actions to new threats that we are facing today. back then it was implied sometimes stated that opposing the iraq war mea you didn't supp opposing the iraq war we can't national city.shown i think in any years have shown that to be inaccurate. but we are hearing echoes of that rhetoric again. you to support this version of the nda thing you don't support

the troops. terms like taking this bill hostage that's just not the case. since 2005, senate republicans vote against cloture on the ndaa, the national defense authorization bill 10 times. and over that same period they cast votes against final passage of the ndaa on the senate floor eight times. sometimes it was because of policy differences like ending "don't ask, don't tell." other times it was as though things like gas prices at the pump or other issues, but i don't think anyone has ever done it to be unpatriotic. we can't change history but we can certainly learn from it. we can't see into the future but we know we must plan for it. and we must pay for by making strategic investments today. at this debate really boils down to this. what's the most effective way to

provide for our national defense? and i don't think inflating the overseas contingency account oco come is the way to go. because it complicates rather than help the pentagon's budgetary problem. it does allow the military to effective -- effectively plan for the future. we need to replace the senseless quest with a balanced approach that keeps america safe and strong at home and abroad. when it comes to defense budget congress should do the same standards of honesty transparency and discipline that we demand for our troops. but right now there's a serious disconnect in the local mechanism of this bill and congress needs to step up and fix it. the president's fiscal year 2016 budget request for defense was $38 billion above the 2011 budget control act the bca. they're spending caps.

the president requested this $38 billion he authorized an appropriate part of the annual base budget so they could be part of the defense department funding not just for one year as oco is but in the budget for an indefinite period of time. request also contains $50.9 billion for the oco accounts meaning funding for truly war related expenses and not enduring base budget requirements. however, this bill does not address the bca's damaging impacts on defense and nondefense. instead it turns to a gimmick. this bill initially transferred $39 billion from the base budget request of the president to the oco budget leaving a base budget conveniently below the bca level in order to avoid

triggering automatic reductions for sequestration. the funding shifted to oco is for entering required of military services not direct war related, not those costs generated in iraq, afghanistan and elsewhere. and it includes flying ships submarines can, all trained to support future is for our national military strategy. these are not oco expenses. these are the expenses of the department of defense facing a long-term challenges of the united states and maintaining the long-term capabilities of the united states defense forces. now some have said that we should avoid subjecting defense spending to the budget control caps through this oco approach for a year while a deal to revise or eliminate the bca caps is negotiated. i couldn't disagree more

because if we use this approach, this gimmick for one year, it will be easy to do it next year and a year after and the year after that, ensuring coming during balance between security and domestic spending. using local industry is completely counted to the intent of the bca, the budget control act. the bca impose proportionally equal cuts to defense and nondefense discretionary spending to force a bipartisan compromise. this approach unilaterally reneged on the bipartisan approach. rather than generating momentum for a permanent solution for sequestration, this approach essentially exempts defense spending from the bca caps and releases all pressure to find out solution. the president's defense budget

request placed indeed funding in the base where it should be and provide for the oco funds for contingencies overseas that exist today. the budget resolution and the adobe for us met the presidents request or overall funding. this is not a question whether the president asked for a certain amount of money and my republican colleagues are asking for more. what they did is essentially said, we are going to not technically, i emphasize technically, violate the bca account. we're just going to move more money into oco. so we can stand up with a straight face and say well bca applies across the whole board. every government agency is subject to the same type limit at the budget control act imposes. but, of course, the truth is through the use of oco it doesn't apply to common sense. and it's particularly startling

when you look at the presidents request for domestic agencies. he asked for $37 billion for all the other domestic agencies about the bca caps. and without that money they're going to have a very difficult indeed, perhaps impossible challenge, of meeting the basic needs of the american public needs that every college in this chamber recognizes, some i disagree with them but they recognize that we need to support education as we've done for decades to the title i program. we need to support people, our seniors and particularly through senior housing programs in every state, in every community that has to be done. but if we follow this path it will be harder and harder for nondefense agencies to do this. and so what we have created is a

huge loophole for the bca for defense. and again let me remind you. the president and my colleagues on this side are not arguing about the resources necessary for defense. they take the same number, but what they've done on the other side is funded that not straightforwardly, not recognizing that we have to deal with the bca by using this, and i say again, this gimmick. and it remains in the middle i believe this approach will be a magnet for nondefense spending in future years. not only will we become addicted to oco spending, meaning interesting things will find their way into the oco accounts. for example, in fiscal year 1992 congress added funds to defense bill for breast cancer research. at the time discretionary spending was subject to statutory caps under the budget

enforcement act of 1990, the follow-on to the act of 1985. what we have done is establish caps on discretionary domestic spending but there were no similar caps on the other side and that's precisely what the effects of this proposal is a today. the initial funding led to the establishment of the congressional it erected medical research program. and the citizenry with this important program -- directed. i would suspect every senator tested and said ea, that research on breast cancer so import, that research is so critical and so important. it had strong bipartisan support and each year congress authorize and appropriate that -- hundreds of millions of dollars for cutting edge and could essential research areas. in fact, since 1992 cd mrp funding has received over

$13 billion. and while this program is funded through the defense bill and managed by the army to the department of defense has not used any of them a so that a competitive grant process and proposes a subject to stringent and. review. dod is a pass-through. because back then the only way you can get this done was because there were no caps effectively on defense spending and i would suggest that that is going to repeat itself over and over again if we start down this path. that's why we can look to do and say we have these pressing crisis all across the globe, and it is true but if we go down this path we will see these types of developments. and again, i'm a strong supporter of medical research. these programs saved countless lives.

i will support this funding in this bill. i think it is is a way that would establish duty with a program that we should recognize it came about not because it was the most logical place to place medical research funding. it was a budgetary expedient, just like this approach today. and it will be replicated. and looking forward 10 years i would suggest that you will see lots of programs that they are less and less connectivity to our overseas operations included in oco if that's the way we choose to get around dca come at us with this legislation is doing. there's another point to make. moving this funding from the base of oco has no impact on reducing the deficit. oco and emergency funding are

outside budget gaps for reason. they are for the cost of ongoing military operations or respond to other unforeseen events like natural disasters. to suddenly know the true purpose of oco and treated as a budget gimmick or slush fund to skirt the bca is unacceptable used for this important tool for our warfighters. just to highlight how this oco approach skews defense spending to consider the amount of oco in relation to the number of deployed troops. if you ask someone i think on the street, well is overseas funds, there used to support our forces overseas, it's got to be some relationship between the number of our forces overseas and our oco spending, well let's see. in 2008 at the height of our nation's troop commitment in iraq and afghanistan, 187000 troops deployed. we spent approximately $1 million in oco funding for

every service member deployed to those countries. under this bill we would expand approximately $9 million in oco for every service members deployed to iraq and afghanistan, roughly 9930 military personnel. so we are doing a lot more than spending for oco in this bill. deliberately a lot more. we are doing what we used to do and what we should do in the base budget department of defense. it circumvents the law the bca. it's not fiscally responsible and it's not an honest accounting to the american public. years ago with 187,000 troops, our oco costs were about a million dollars per troop and now they are 9 million.

something is skewed. and adding to these funds to oco does not solve come in some cases companies they beauties which are problem. general order you know said in his word, oco isil limit and it has restriction and very strict rules that have to be followed and so if we're inhibited by that it might not help us. what might have -- what might happen if the entity or a bunch of money we had back because we are not able to spend it. it needs to be based on a long-term military strategy which requires a dod to focus at least five years in the future, a bunch of plus-up to oco does not provide dod with the certainty and stability needs when building its five year budget to ask general dempsey testified, we need to fix the base budget. we won't have the certainty we need if there is a year by your

oco fix. defense secretary carter added that it does not allow defense department to plan efficiently and strategically. adding funds to oco it is a managerially unfound approach of what should be a multiyear budget process. according to the vice chief of staff of the army general colin of the current restriction on the employment of oco when the other to be a capital that is currently being profit offset the reduction or base budget is driven by the current proposals that are before congress. in order to meet the needs of our army it must have greater flexibility. it must be less restricted and must enable us to sustain and marginalize as we go forward. this instability undermines the morale of our troops and their families who want to know their futures are planned for more than one year at a time. and i'm confident that our partners we wanted provide the best technology to our troops are also tested.

abuse of oco in this massive wave would unduly support for critical mechanism used to fund incremental cost of overseas conflicts. we have to have the discipline system to estimate the course and funding of a trained, ready forced to the administration has indicated that legislation will be subject to veto. that's secretary carter said this approach is clearly a road to nowhere. i say this because president obama has already made clear that he will not accept a budget that locks in sequestration going forward as this approach does and he won't accept a budget that provides a link between national security under economic security. when you talk about national security, true national security requires that non-dod departments agencies also receive relief from bca caps.

the pentagon simply cannot meet the complex set of national study challenges without the help of other governmental departments and agencies. including state justice and homeland security. the armed service committee we've heard testimony on the essential role of other government agencies ensuring our national defense remains strong. the defense department share of the burden would surely put these agencies are not adequately funded as well. there is a symbiotic relationship between the department of defense and other safe and departments and agencies that contribute to our national security. it has to recognize that a true whole of government approach requires more than just a strong dod. the bca caps are based on a misnomer, that discretionary spending is divided into security and nonsecurity spending. but members need to be clear. essential national security functions are reform by

government agencies and departments other than defense department. according to the command of u.s. southern command general kelly we do not and cannot do this mission alone. our strong partnerships with the u.s. and agency, especially with the department of homeland security, the u.s. coast guard the drug enforcement administration, the federal bureau of investigation and the departments of treasury and state are integral to our ever to ensure the fold defense of the u.s. homeland. and that's retired marine corps general mattis said if you don't find this date department fully, then i need to buy more ammunition. general mattis points out best illustrate in the administration's nine lines of the first to counter the so-called islamic state of iraq in the font or iso. which 83% of americans think is than the more threat to the

united states. of the administration's nine lines that effort, only to which are secured and intelligence falls squarely within the responsibility of the department of defense and intelligence community. the remaining seven elements of our counter isil strategy rely heavily on a civil department and agencies. for example one supporting effective governments in a right to know about the military assistance for the government of iraq will be effective in countering the isil threat in iraq if they abadi government does not cover any more transparent and inclusive manner that gives sunnis hope to participate politically in iraq's future. we need a diplomatic and political expert at the state department to engage with sunnis shia minority communities in iraq to promote reconciliation and build a political dirty among the iraqi people needed to defeat isil. and that is not a strictly

defense department initiative. you have to build partner capacity. the coalition is building the capability and capacity of our partners in the region to wage a long-term campaign against isil. all the efforts to build the capacity of the iraqi security forces and some other for partners are funded by the defense department, the state department and usaid are also responsible for billions of dollars in similar activities across a broader spectrum of activity. under the republican plan not at the state usaid programs will be plucked up. i'm pleased to address this gap is a threat to our nation's efforts to combat isil. we have to disrupt isil's finances. isil's expansion is giving it access to significant and diverse sources of funding. countering isil financing required the state department and the treasury department to work with her for partners and

banking sectors to ensure that our counter isil sanction regime isn't limited and enforced. the state and treasure let efforts are essentially deemed nonsecurity activities the bca caps under the republican approach we are going to disrupt isil dash to our efforts maybe have a big is also notable the office of foreign asset control and the office of terrorism and financial intelligence in the treasury department are also categorized as nonsecured activities under the bca caps. the republican funded strategy not only means that our counter isil efforts will be hampered so will our efforts to impose effective sanctions against iran, sudan competitive edge to support the illicit activities will also be affected. we have to continually expose the true and true nature of isil. our strategic communications command against isil requires a truly whole of government effort

come including state department, voice of america, usaid. the republican approach to funding our strategic communications strategy is part of government plan not a whole of government funding. we have to disrupt foreign fighters. they are the lifeblood of isil yet key component to the department of homeland security we be facing this under republican budget proposal to undermine efforts to disrupt the flow of foreign fighters to syria and iraq. and efforts of our diplomats around the world probing our for partners to pass laws were they to enforce the laws on their books, the efforts of the coalition to stem the flow of foreign fighters will never be successful. my colleague senator mccain pointed out the huge crisis. again, our first agency typically to respond to refugees is usaid, united states agency for international development, and other state department agencies. we won't be able to infect to deal with that issue if those

budget caps are imposed upon u.s. aid and other agencies. and these refugee camps our want of the breeding grounds for the foreign fighters that flow back into the conflict zone. so unless we adopt a much broader approach and unless we do something other than simply post a defense we will not i think achieve true national security. of course we have to protect the homeland. while a small portion of the department of homeland security is considered security related under the bca the vast majority of the department falls under the nonsecurity bca can't. this further demonstrates that the republican plan is a misnomer. it's an effort to put a game of smoke and mirrors with the american public. the agents of the department of homeland security that are on

guard they deviate agency to the drug enforcement agency to pick up intelligence about threats to the nation, all of them vitally contribute to our national security but they will be treated distinctly different if we adopt the approach that is inherent in this defense authorizationauthorization bill. to talk about the refugee crisis. virtually none the activity that support argument can efforts in the region are sick considered security activities. military commanders will routinely tell you that efforts state, usaid, the office of foreign disaster assistance are critical to our broader security efforts. this is particularly true in the counter isil campaign. those refugees that are flooding into the countries adjacent to syria and iraq they have to be dealt with not only -- but also potential sources of foreign fighters, and that's going to require a hold of common approach not simply using oco

to beef up our defense spending. taken together the republican plan could compromise our broader campaign against isil and provide -- needed to do the job to protect the american people. the men and women of our military volunteer to protect this nation and are overseas fighting for our ideals. including good education economic opportunity, safe communities. efforts for all these goals will be hampered unless someone department agencies also receive relief from the bca caps. i had the privilege of commanding a paratrooper company at fort bragg, north carolina and we fought for many reasons but including was to give people the chance in this country not just to protect them from a foreignformthreat but to give them real

opportunities here. and by the way, our service members and their families rely on many of the services provided by non-dod department and agency. for example, the department of education administered impact aid to local school districts where children go to learn. department of agriculture supported the school lunch program which soldiers and their children and their families benefit from the national institute of health supports life-saving research including by contributing advanced efforts on traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress and suicide prevention. the department of health and human services run medicare provides health care for retirees and disabled individuals come and medicaid which provides service to parents including military parents with children with special needs. and failure to provide bca can't relate to non-dod department and agencies but also shortchanged veterans receive employment services, transition assistance and housing and homelessness

support. not only is this sort of a function of failing to support potentially our servicemen through schooling after other aspects, our national security is also tied to our economic security. secretary carter made this very clear. he said the approach that is being proposed disregards the enduring long-term connection between our nations security and many other factors. factors like scientific are indeed to keep up our technological edge, education of future all-volunteer military force and the general economic strength of our country. where will we get the soldiers of the future that have the skills and the training and expertise if we are under investing in a basic education for all of our citizens? might and main that will keep the pressure on for permanent solution to bca caps and

sequestration by requiring that the bca caps be eliminated or increased and proportionality equal amounts of both secured and nonsecurity spending before the additional oco funds are available for obligation or expenditure. let me again emphasize, we are not taking away these funds. we are simply saying what i think that's a great deal of sense. until we develop an approach to bca that allows us to arrive to a comprehensive defense of the nation to invest in economic health of the nation then these funds will be reserved. once we do that that automatically all the funding that is inherent still becomes available to the department of defense. we have heard colleagues on both sides now talk for years now about the need to resolve the bca to in sequestration the average uniformed service

member, every chief of service said the number one priority is in sequestration, and the bca. this bill doesn't do it. we can no longer sidestep the issue. we have to engage on this issue. we have to move i think promptly and thoroughly and thoughtfully forward to resolve this. the legislation i proposed recognizes the need for these resources that recognizes that the overarching issue, unless we are able to effectively modify or eliminate the bca our comprehensive national security would be threatened. our economic progress will be threatened. our aspirations for the country could be thwarted. might and and 60 of it by the way, a sense of the senate that is already in the bill. and it clearly states

sequestration really should include equal defense and non-defense really. we have made come and document the chairman for this, a statement without an effective means of implementation, by the statement, and aspirational goal that we should fix bca and relief defense and nondefense spending. and i think that's an important statement. but my trying to make sure we go further and provide an action forcing device to do this. i believe very strongly in this amendment. i think it's relevant consideration on this bill. i believe it goes to the heart of the most important question we face in the country today is how do we essentially provide for the defense come a

comprehensive defense of the nation how do we invest in our people so that we will continue to be strong? and i think if we do not provide this type of mechanism, to start this discussion on the bca and hopefully probably complete it then we will be missing not only historic opportunity, we will be locking ourselves into a road that will lead us less secure in the future, less productive less strong as a nation. let me remind people, the stated purpose of the bill is to quote authorized appropriations through the 2016 military activity for the department of defense. we have to begin this appropriations process by recognizing that the bca will not help us going forward and we must move to modify or repeal it. and with that, i would close

simply by saying, again, if we continue these paths past forward and will harm our military readiness our national defense should be based upon the needs the long-term needs. they should be reflected in a transparent forthright budget that puts the money in the base, provides a contingency fund for true contingency overseas but doesn't turn things upside down and make our contingency funding really the heart of the bill in so many respects. we have to work together. we have to make sure that every federal agency can benefit because every federal agency contribute to the country. so i strongly urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment to begin this dialogue and to move forward, the sooner the better. and with that mr. president, i would yield the floor. >> this is inside the u.s.

edition accordance in chicago were about about 15 minutes ago former u.s. house speaker dennis hastert arrived to be arranged on an indictment for nearly two weeks ago that alleges the former house speaker agreed to $3.5 million to pay $3.5 million to someone from his days as a high school teacher, not to reveal a secret about past misconduct of this applicant about 15 minutes ago. the iranian happening at this hour. -- arraignment. [background sounds]

>> former house speaker dennis hastert providing for his arraignment in chicago about 20 minutes ago produced senate gaveling in in about 10 minutes to continue debate on the defense authorization bill. we will take you live just outside the senate chamber, the majority leader speaking to reporters. live coverage here on c-span2. >> the ranking member of the senate armed services committee and what it will do in effect will be to reduce by some $30 billion the authorization for equipment, for training for readiness, and for the ability to defend this nation the it is ill founded and it would do enormous damage to our ability to defend the nation. every military uniform leader who has come before our

committee has said that cutting this kind of money from our military would place the lives of the men and women serving in the military in greater danger. we cannot and should not do that. we are having lots of amendments and will have lots of debate, as is very appropriate. and i would point out that the last two years there was no debate and there was no amendments. because senator reid's view that the defense authorization bill did not warrant that. and now senator reid is saying that taking of the defense authorization bill with the world on fire is a waste of time. we disagree. >> i'd like to join my voice in thinking this is a risky strategy. we just returned about a month and a half ago from seeing our

troops in the middle is with a trip with senator mcconnell, and the thing that really brought home to me as it always does how absolutely important it is that we fund our troops that we support our troops. we all have national guard troops that are deployed all across the world. this means a lot to them and their families and to the security of our country. and so the fact that they're holding this bill hostage to move forward with a strategy for domestic spending for things like the epa and the irs sends the wrong signal i think your troops in the field families who support them and really to the security of this country. so i hope that the democrats will have a lightbulb go off in their heads to realize that this is the wrong the wrong method to make their point and we will strong stand behind our military, kind of the defense of

this country. thank you. >> i'd like to thank senator mccain for the good work that he did on this bill and committee. iser on the armed services committee with him and he was open. we had a great process. we went through a long process of putting together a bill that came out of committee on a strong vote. on a strong bipartisan vote. this is so important. i think every american realizes that, and we're having a process where we are having debate. you know, it was a couple weeks ago when i stood here and said how excited i was to have the ndaa on the floor where we were going to debate. senator mccain was having an open for amendment process, and he is continuing that. so i thank you for that. it's disappointing to see the action of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

we have a very important bill. it has reform in it of our acquisition system. it we don't readiness. it reduces costs that were seen with the headquarters staff at the pentagon. it invest in the future. and these investments are all put at risk by very strange strategy on the other side. i happen to believe that all government spending is not created equal. our first priority as a federal government is for the national defense. and we have the obligation, the duty to be able to provide our military with the resources that they need so that they can carry out missions that we give them. and it makes this into a political back and forth, makes

no sense to me. it makes no sense to the people of nebraska. and it makes no sense to the american people. our duty is to care for the security of our people and our country. and what the democrats are doing on this bill is not fulfilling that responsibility. so i urge my colleagues on the other side to take a step back and realize that they have an obligation and they have a duty to provide for the defense and the security of this country. thank you. >> there's a growing bipartisan consensus that america's energy resources are not only a source of our economic strength, they are an important element in our national security assets as well. and you see people like leon

panetta, among others, who have stepped forward and said we need to be smart about how we use this great national security asset, particularly in the light of those who would use energy as a weapon and talking specifically about vladimir putin and his willingness to turn the energy off, they cast off to ukraine and other countries in europe. but we need to make sure that our friends around the world know that america can be a reliable trading partner when it comes to our energy assets. it also undermines the efforts of our adversaries like mr. putin to use energy as a weapon. we can do that by passing the amendment which i've introduced to this national defense authorization bill and to help our colleagues will join together to continue this bipartisan consensus and discussion about how we can use our energy assets as a source of our national security.

>> yesterday the president in germany said the health care law is working well. today at a meeting of the catholic health care group, the president again talked about health care and counseling the reality is the reality is. the president is must be seeing a very different reality than most of america's is seeing. the support of the health care law is right now at an all time low, and the reason is most people feel it is a bad deal for them personally. the costs have exploded not just the cost of premiums but the cost of co-pays, the cost of deductibles all conspired of the president promised people would see premiums dropping by $2500 per family. and new reports are premiums are going to skyrocket again this year so there is no end in sight. and yet yesterday at the g7 meeting the president went and criticized the supreme court and said that the supreme court rules against them in the upcoming king versus burwell case that he would have a single line to a single sentence bill

that could fix everything. well, this congress is not going to pass a fake fix for this president we are going to continue to take significant exception to this helped a lot which has been bad for patients and providers effort taxpayers. what we are going to do is protect the people when they see the supreme court ruling not protect the law. >> so the senate has passed a defense authorization bill every year for the last 54 years but senator mccain said the last few years we have abate the defense authorization bill. even this your senator beats that it was a waste of time to debate this bill which is pretty hard to figure out until you realize that for the last couple of years before this, senator reid said we will vote on the bill but we are not going to debate it not going to spend the time to this bill is a topic worth spending time on. it's the number one priority of

the federal government. it is the one thing that virtually no one argues that we can do for ourselves or that some state and local government could do better. having this priority is an important one. having this debate is important at this is a bill that looks at what we're doing to be sure that people are ready to defend the country. it requires the pentagon to look at the bureaucracy again. it establishes a new retirement option under today's retirement option, the only one available less than one out of five people who serve benefit from a retirement plan. this proposed a new plan that 75% is the essence of people who serve would benefit from that plan. this is what happens when you debate the bill and talk about how we could do this important job of defending the country better, and hopefully today's vote will indicate not only will we debate the bill but move forward and pass this bill and

establish what our defense priorities are and then figure out how to pay for the defense priorities. >> as in the of the armed services committee, i was pleased to be part of an overwhelming bipartisan majority for this defense authorization bill. bipartisanship is a good thing when it comes to foreign policy. it's a good thing when it comes to national security. and it is particularly important and essential it comes to supporting our troops which is what this bill does. we've always had a bipartisan majority in the united states senate for this national defense authorization act. we did under chairman levin. i've every confidence in will have a bipartisan majority under chairman mccain. sometimes you start off suiting up in a partisan way. it happened with the iran

nuclear bill. it started off republicans versus democrats. at the end we were all united. sent a bill to the president to be completely changed his view and decided to sign that the. we move from partisanship to bipartisanship. we started the day on the defense market with every democrat saying they opposed the bill and every republican supporting the bill. by the end of the market the leadership of john mccain we actually passed the bill with eight democrats in support and only four democrats opposed. so i think -- >> republican leaders speaking to reporters outside the u.s. senate chamber. the chamber as gaveling back in for legislative work. more work on the defense authorization bill and a key vote and about 3:00 on moving forward to jack reed's amendment dealing with funding on the wars in iraq and afghanistan and antiterrorism efforts. it is said for 3:00. now live to the senate floor here on c-span2.

forces. but i'd like to speak just briefly about an element of our national security that is often overlooked, and that has to do with the interconnection between our energy resources here in america and global security. i'll start by quoting chairman of the joint chiefs of staff martin dechcy, who said -- quote -- "i think we've got to pay more and particular attention to energy as an instrument of national power." close quote. well i couldn't agree in this instance with general dempsey more. so i want to again address a way in which the united states can use our vast domestic energy resources to not only enhance our economy but also to help enhance our national security and help us meet our strategic objectives around the world and specifically by helping many of our nato allies in europe in

this process. as i mentioned here on the floor last week, many of these countries rely heavily on energy resources from russia, creating strategic vulnerability for them as well as for the united states their treaty ally. and this isn't a hypothetical matter, because we know that vladimir putin has literally turned the spigot off to countries like ukraine an threatened to do so to europe, if they happen to disagree with russian policy, particularly with regard to the ex-propriation of the crimea and ukraine. but the united states can use its energy resources to reassure our allies and partners and to lessen reduce at the same time their dependence on bad actors like russia and iran. so it's as simple as helping our friends and checking the abuse

of power by our adversaries. now, while allowing energy exports to some of our allies when their security is threatened probably sounds like a commonsense notion here to a lot of people, there are some skeptics. one of our colleagues, the junior senator from massachusetts, has suggested that approving crude oil exports to anybody including on a limited basis to our allies who are being coerced and under duress from vladimir putin that somehow that that would result in a tax on consumers at the pump. in other words he's arguing that exporting our natural resources around the world would actually cause gasoline prices to go up. well, i'm here to say that that's a faulty assumption, and it's simply not grounded in fact. it's at odds with the research and leading opinions of multiple

experts and think tanks and officials. it is even at odds with the obama administration's leading expert in this field. so here's what secretary moniz said on february 12, 2015 about the effect of crude oil exports on u.s. gas prices. he said, there would be no effect on gas prices. he said, "and the [eia's] conclusion was probably none to possibly minor decreases in domestic prices." so if you think about it, actually more american supply increases world supply of oil. and, indeed, gasoline is already sold around the world at a global price and so more supply, which is the chief component of oil, which is the chief component of gasoline, would actually increase the

supply and even, according to a recovering lawyer, who is not an economist, on a supply-and-demand basis with static demand increasing the supplies is actually going to bring down the price. so -- and the energy secretary isn't the only one who believes that there will either be none or actually a downward price to consumers. several studied on this issue the government accountability office noted, and i quote "consumer fuel prices such as gasoline diesel, and jet fuel could decrease as a result of removing crude and oil export restrictions." so this is the government accountability office that said that actually -- confirming slings what secretary moniz said is that we would actually see gasoline prices go down at the pump, were we to lift this

domestic sanction we've imposed upon ourselves when it comes to exporting ciewtd. exporting -- crude. another think tank, the aspen institute, said it would have significant positive and durable effects on our gross domestic product. aggregate employment, and income. so the aspen institute just as another example thinks it would be good for incomes it would be good for jobs, it would be good for our economy. so mr. president it seems the only people who don't think lifting the ban would be good or limited to -- are limited to the homosexuals ofhalls of congress, scaring people when it comes to the use of our fossil fuels particularly oil and gas. while i think it is important to come here and rebut this faulty argument the amendment is much more narrowly targeted. it ensures that we will have a reliable sense of the energy vulnerabilities of our european

partners. in fact, we are a member of the north atlantic treaty organization and under article 5, were they to be attacked, under article 5 all members of the treaty would be required to come to their assistance. so why in the world wouldn't we want to reduce their vulnerability to economic hostage taking and then we also want to get a better understanding of russia's ability to use this dependency against our allies in nato and europe in general. so my amendment would allow us to see the big picture when it comes to just how dependent our allies in the region are on nations that wield their energy supply as a weapon. now, i just with a nts to i just want to make clear my amendment would not change any of the current law. it simply restates the current authority that the president has

in his discretion to allow crude oil and natural gas exports if determined to be consistent with the national interest. and i would say mr. president even though russia and europe and nato are the primary focus this is not just limited to nato. it could include allies important allies of ours in the middle east like israel as well. my amendment reiterates that existing authority and it encourages the president to use it to help reduce the vulnerabilities of our allies in europe and around the world when it's determined to be in our national interest. it doesn't add to that authority, and it doesn't constrain it either. well the president just returned from the so-called g-7 the leading seven countries of the free world -- or, the economies of the world. and here's what the g-7 said about this topic.

the g-7 leaders said, "we reaffirm our support for ukraine and other vulnerable countries ... and reiterate that energy should not be used as a means of political coercion or as a threat to security." so if that's the position of the g-7, if the obama administration takes the position that lifting the ban on exports of oil will not do anything to raise the price of gasoline at the pump and could well reduce it, then i think the senate would be well-advised to support the amendment that i've offered which again just restates the current authorities doesn't expand it, and then asks the defense department and the intelligence community to do an assessment of how we can better understand the role that our energy assets play as an element of our soft power and national security. our allies are pretty clear-eyed about all this.

they recognize that shrinking their dependence won'ting complete or easy, but one -- won't be complete or easy, but one goal this amendment seeks is to put russia on notice that they won't be able to hold these countries hostage to energy. this is about options alternatives and a stable supply on the world market that are all helped by increased u.s. production and this renaissance in natural gas and oil that's been brought about thanks to the great innovation and technology improvements in the private sector created here in the united states but benefiting the entire world. the g-7 leaders noted that the diversification of the world's energy supply is a core element of energy security, including the diversity of energy mixes

energy fuels sources and routes. so my amendment is based on the idea that we may supplement the global market and that ultimately brings about increased diversity in fuel supply, which benefits everyone. this is not -- my amendment is not about limiting the president's authority under current law. i didn't intend to do that. this amendment doesn't do it. it is about taking a modest first step toward addressing the requests the pleas in some cases, of our allies and partners in an increasingly unpredictable world. so i'd encourage our colleagues to support this amendment and in doing so, take the long-term view of our national security interests as well as the peace and stability of our most trusted allies and partners. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum.

mr. president, if i may withhold that request i'd ask unanimous consent that time under the quorum call be equally divided. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. cornyn: i'd be glad to restate. i am asking unanimous consent that time under the quorum call be equally divided between the sides. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: now i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: mr. president what is the parliamentary situation? the presiding officer: the senate is currently considering h.r. 1735. approximately 22 minutes are remaining on the majority side. mr. mccain: 22 minutes on the majority side? the presiding officer: yes and is 1 minutes 11 minutes on the minority side. mr. mccain: i ask for as much time as the senator from rhode island may need to conclude the debate be in order and i have ten minutes in order before the

vote. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. reed: mr. president, we have senator stabenow and senator durbin coming, and i believe we've heard that senator grassley is also coming. with your ten minutes, i think that will fill up the time until the vote at 3:00. mr. mccain: we have senator sessions as well. well, let me suggest the absence of a quorum first and then we'll work it out. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: ms. stabenow: mr. president, i

would ask us suspension of the quorum call. the presiding officer: is there objection? ms. stabenow: thank you very much. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator from michigan is recognized. ms. stabenow: thank you very much. i'm here on the floor to speak to the amendment we will be voting on, as it relates to senator reed's amendment. i first want to thank both the leaders of this committee for the important work that is being done but the amendment in front of us is absolutely critical for the safety and security of the american people and certainly for our troops. we all agree, we need to agree that our troops deserve more than budget gimmicks. what we have in here are too many budget gimmicks that do not reflect the commitment that we need to have to our troops and their families. further, it does not allow us to fully fund the security needs of the country. we're going to be having a very important debate after this

legislation on what to do around appropriations and it's critical that senator reed's amendment be passed so that we have the opportunity to fully fund the full range of security needs of our country not only in department of defense which we all know is very important, but our border security cybersecurity, counterterrorism police and firefighter efforts. those on the front lines. who do we think is calling when we dial 911? when there's an emergency of any kind it's police officers and firefighters that, unfortunately, without the reed amendment will not receive the kinds of support and funding that is needed to keep our communities safe. we need to stop weapons of mass destruction, focus on airport security. we're on and off airports every single week as are millions of americans. and we know how critical it is

that we be funding our airport security. and we know that there are outbreaks like ebola and other inspecific husband diseases and attacks that may come from that that are not in the bill in front of us that are critical to the funding of the national security interests of our families our communities and our country. senator reed has put forward an amendment that would guarantee we would not only think of security in the context of the department of defense but that we would understand that it is throughout the federal government. all of the various services coming together from border security cybersecurity counterterrorism local police and firefighters on the front lines, the ability to stop weapons of mass destruction airport security, ebola protection with the centers for disease control and so much

more. the people of the country understand that it's not just about the department of defense, and certainly we need to make sure that even within the department of defense budget that we are doing more than budget gimmicks, certainly our troops deserve that. but without the amendment that senator reed has so thoughtfully put forward and designed, we will be undercutting critical parts of national security for our people. and so i would strongly urge that we come together in a bipartisan basis we talk a lot about border security, we hear a lot about that here. we certainly understand what's happening around cybersecurity. and the needs of our country. we could go through all of the other parts of the federal budget that impact security and realize if we aren't willing to look at security for our

families and communities and our country as a whole as senator reed does, we will be undercutting the safety and security that we all want for our families and communities. and so i strongly support and urge colleagues to come together and to vote for the reed amendment. thank you mr. president. mr. reed: mr. president i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent the proceedings under the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from arizona is recognized. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent the following senators be permitted to speak before the vote senator durbin for eight minutes, senator sessions for eight minutes mccain for seven minutes and senator reed for seven minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the instant democratic leader. mr. durbin: we have an industry

in america called the for-profit colleges and universities. it's a unique part of america's private sector and i use the phrase "private sector" with some caution. these are profitable entities which portray themselves as colleges and universities. you know their names. the university of phoenix. devry university, kaplan university. and until recently, corinthian, one of the largest for-profit schools. what do they do? they entice young people to sign up at their for-profit colleges and universities and promise them that they're going to give them training or education to find a job. now, it turns out that as luring as that is it doesn't tell the whole story. the real story about the for-profit college industry can be told with three numbers -- ten. 10% of all high school graduates go to these for-profit colleges

and universities. 20. 20% of all the federal aid to education goes to these for-profit colleges and universities. about $35 billion a year flows into these schools. if it was a separate federal agency it would be the ninth federal agency in washington, d.c. $35 billion. but the key number you should remember is 44. 44% of all the student loan defaults in america are students at for-profit colleges and universities. how can that be? 10% of the students and 44% of the loan defaults? first they overcharge their students. secondly when the students get deeply in debt many of them drop out. and third those who end up graduating find out many times the diploma is worthless. that's what's happened. back in december of 2013, i wrote to the department of education asking them to

investigate corinthian colleges. it was an article in "the huffington post" that drew my attention to it as well as the actions by the california attorney general. turned out that corinthian was lying, was lying to the students about whether they would ever end up getting a job and lying to the federal government about actually their performance and how well they were doing. they were caught in their lie. as a consequence the department of education started threatening corinthian colleges for defrauding taxpayers and the government in their official reports. things went from bad to worse. corinthian college declared bankruptcy. what happens when one of these for-profit colleges and universities declare bankruptcy? well the students many times are left high and dry. they have nothing. no school to go to. wait a minute they don't have nothing. they have something. they have debt. a debt that they carry away from these failed schools. well we have a provision in the

law which says if your school goes bankrupt, you might be able to walk away from your student debt. well the department of education made an announcement yesterday which i support which says they're going to work with these students who have been defrauded by clintian college misled into believing this college was worth their time and money. and some of these students will get a chance to be relieved from their debt. their college debt. it's i.t. a good thipg because remember student loan debt isn't like a lot of other debts. ilt not like theit's not like the money you borrower for a car or a hoavment student loan debts are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. you've got them for a lifetime. make a bad decision when you're 19 years old sign up for college at correspondent corinthian college or i.t.t. tech, you've got it for

life. we see many of these schools garnishing social security checks. so now the department of education is work on this traig to do the right thing by these corinthian students. i have been in touch with the secretary of education whom i respect. and i really told him, this is just unfortunately an early indication of an industry that is on hard times. the stock prices of these for-profit schools are in deep trouble across the board. people are finally realizing there's too much fraudulent activity going on at these institutions. who are the losers? not just the students with debts from these worthless schools but taxpayers. we're the ones who send these billions of dollars to these so-called private companies and have their c.e.o.'s take home millions of dollars while the kids are getting little or no education. those are the losers. what should we do about it? wcialtion i thinkwcialtion i think wewell, i think we ought to be a

lot tougher holding them accountable for what they've done to these students and their families holding them accountable to what they've done to taxpayers. you know what happened to corinthian after it became clear they were lying to us? $1 billion $1 billion mr. and mrs. taxpayer. and there are schools like that, unfortunately, across this country. the last point i'll make on this speaking to the secretary of education and others, the real losers many times are also veterans -- veterans. the g.i. bill. we offered to veterans after they've served our country the chance to get an education and make a life. they use it, sadly at worthless colleges and universities. they have a used up a once-in-a--lifetime opportunity. they're left with a debt and a promise that this education will lead to something. i'm going to continue to work

with my colleagues, and senator blumenthal from connecticut. i'm going to continue to work with these nonprofit universities. 20% of the federal aid to education and 44% of the student loan defaults have to be held accountable. i yield the floor. mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president, i would ask that i be notified after seven minutes. the presiding officer: the senator will be so notified. mr. sessions: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that commander eddie pilcher be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the calendar year. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: commander pilcher is a fabulous naval

officer. he is doing great work in our office as we deal with the defense issues in our country. he reflects well on the navy and the people who defend this country every day. mr. president, what's happening now is unfortunate. the defense bill that came out of the armed services committee of which i am a member, ranking member senator reed, chairman mccain worked on. we've had virtually no significant disagreements except this one. and what our democratic colleagues are insissing on, driven by the -- insisting on, driven by the president and political interests is to insist that defense gets no increase in funding unless non-defense gets an increase in funding over the basic budget limit of funding in america. in 20 11, we passed the budget control act.

a part of that was the sequester and was not something that was never intended to occur. it was in law. they always say well, we never intended this to occur. not so. we passed it into law and it said there will be a commission and the commission can look at entitlements and other things with the hope that we would come up with some way to save more money and put us 0en a sound financial -- us on a sound financial path. and they said, if they didn't come up with that agreement then what we put in law would take effect as limits on defense and non-defense discretionary spending. now, under the budget control act, next year will be the last year it holds those limits -- so basically flat spending again this year -- but it would increase thereafter at 2.5% per year, which is above the inflation rate. so we are not destroying

non-defense discretionary spending. now remember, this legislation was passed in 2011. that's the year president obama said iraq is settled. we're going to pull all the troops out. senator mccain pleaded with him not to do that. he said we could have danger in the future. he warned that if we did that, chaos could occur. but, no, the president to comply with his campaign promise, said we're pulling them all out. unfortunately, senator mccain was correct. we've had isis iraq is in turmoil, the syrian turmoil has gotten worse. since 20 1,russia 2011, russia invaded crimea libya is in serious problems. all of this i suggest was a result of unwise lack of clear

and strong foreign policy. every one of those situations could be better today had we had clearer leadership and people had listened to someone like chairman mccain, who knew what he was talking about. but that's over the -- water over the dam at this point. what do we do now? we have to have more money for defense. i'm a defense budget hawk. i was ranking member on the budget when we did the 2011 cap and limit on spending. i've defended it consistently. but i have to tell you colleagues both the president our democratic members and republican members believe we're going to have to increase our defense budget. so what is the problem? the problem is, our colleagues are saying, well, you can't increase defense unless you increase non-defense by the same amount. how silly is that?

imagine you got a tight budget at home, a tree falls on your house, emergency, you have to go out and find money borrow money to fix the roof. does that mean now you're going to spend twice as much on your vacation? going to go out and buy a new car you didn't plan to buy because you had to spend more money to fix the house? how irresponsible is that? it's unbelievable to me. this is exactly what is occurring. they are demanding that we will not get a defense budget until you give more money for the non-defense accounts, spend above the non--- in the non-defense account what we agreed to spend in the budget control act. and, remember, it'll soon be beginning to grow at 2.5% a year and we have saved money through the budget control act. it was a successful thing. we do not need to destroy it and give it up.

so i just want to say i wish we hadn't had this dangerous condition erupt throughout much of the world. i wish it hadn't happened. senator mccain warned the foreign policy we were executing was going to result in just this kind of problem. but it has resulted, and we're going to have to defend our country, and this is overseas contingency operations that we'll be funding. and if we do this, it doesn't mean we have to increase equally non-defense spending. and lelt let me just repeat the bad news i think most of us know: every penny increased on the defense budget is borrowed money, and if we increase the non-defense money spending, that's going to be borrowed, too. we don't need to borrow more money than necessary.

just because we have to spend more on defense does not mean we have to spend more on non-defense. that's all i'm saying, and i think it's a mistake for our colleagues on the democratic side to try to use the security of america as a leverage to demand more non-defense spending. mr. president, i thank the chair and would yield the floor. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i thank my friend and colleague from alabama for his very important remarks. i rise to oppose this amendment. i do so with the great respect that i have for my friend and colleague, the ranking member. the senator from revment and i have worked together very closely on every aspect of this legislation. we agree on the overwhelming majority of its provisions, and as i have said before, this legislation is better because of the good work and cooperation

that i have enjoyed with my friend from rhode island. i respect his knowledge it and experience on national defense issues, and i agree with we must fix sequestration. i also agree with him that our national security does not depend solely on the department of defense but unfortunately i disagree with my friend on the amendment before us. since the budget control act became law threats to this country have only increased and increased dramatically. today the united states faces the most diverse and complex array of crises around the world since the end of world war ii. in the face of these global challenges this amendment would prevent the department from using $38 billion of vital budget authority through overseas contingency operations known as o.c.o. despite the claims that o.c.o. is a slush fund, the entirety of the o.c.o. budget goes towards

real defense requirements. with this budget authority we're supporting our troops in afghanistan and iraq, operations against isil, and broader counterterrorism efforts. the armed services committee has also funded a portion of operation and maintenance activities in o.c.o. these activities are directly tied to supporting our operating forces. they pay for training, transportation fuel, and maintenance of our combat equipment. these budgetary lines pay for the readiness of our active force and directly support our ongoing military operation. it would be a disaster if this $38 billion is real estate is removed from what we are trying to achieve in this legislation. and that's why it's not surprising the president himself has requested o.c.o. funding for the exact same activityies. the ndaa fund with o.c.o. money because the president had

requested o.c.o. funding for these activities already and they were the most closely links to the growing number of overseas contingencies in which we are engaged. to reiterate, i agree with senator reed that we must absolutely fix the budget control act and finding a bipartisan solution to do so remains my top priority. but in absence of such an agreement, i refuse to hold funding for military hostage leaving defense at sequestration levels offed of spending that every single military chief has testified would put more american lives at risk of those serving in the armed forces of the united states. we cannot do that. we cannot add greater danger to the lives of the men and women who are serving in the military, and this amendment would do that. the ndaa is a policy bill. it can't solve the budget control act. it deals only with defense

issues and it doesn't spend a dollar. it provides the department of defense and our men and women in uniform with the authorities and support they need to defend the nation. the ndaa is a reform bill, a reform bill, my friends, that will enable our military to rise to the challenges of a more dangerous world. it tackles acquisition reform, military retirement reform, personnel reform, even economies carery reform, headquarters and management reform -- the list goes on and on. the armed services committee identified $10 billion of excess and unssess spending from the president's defense budget request and we are re-investing it in military capabilities for our war fighters and reforms that can yield long-term savings for the department of defense and we did all of this while up-holding our commitments to our service members retirees, and their families.

members of the armed services committee understand the need to fix the budget control act. that's why we included a provision in the bill that would authorize the trans-er in of the aofficial $38 billion that increases the budget caps on discretionary defense and non-defense spending in proportionally equal amounts. t this was the product of a bipartisan compromise and it was the most we could responsibly do in the committee to recognize the need for a broader fiscal agreement without denying funding for our military. mr. president, every one of us has a constitutional duty to provide for the common defense and as chairman of this armed services committee, this is my highest responsibility. funding our national defense with o.c.o. is not ideal but it's far better than the alternative, which is to deny the men and women in uniform $38

billion that they desperately need now $38 billion that the president requested and $38 billion without which our military leaders have said they cannot succeed. regrettably, this is what this amendment would do, and i oppose it. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: mr. president first let me say with great respect how i appreciate the collaboration and cooperation of the chairman on so much of the bill that we worked together, but this is an issue i feel very strongly about. let me be very clear about what this amendment does. first, it recognizes the need as the president did in his budget submission, for adequate resources for our national defense, our department of defense. but what it does is it says the additional money above the president's request for o.c.o., the $38 billion which was taken from the base and put into this

overseas account be essentially fenced or offset, set off until resolved the budget control act. and i think we have to begin that process immediately. senator mccain has said quite sincerely and quite persistently we've got to fix sequestration. every uniformed service chief who came before our committee said we have to fix sequestration and the budget control caps. the reality is this legislation does not do this. indeed, my amendment does not do it but it points us in that direction and gives us a strong incentive to fix the b.c.a., to do what all of our defense leaders have asked us to do for the welfare and the safekeeping of our troops and forces in the field throughout. the president recognized this need. his budget is virtually identical to the top-line number that we're talking about today but what he recognized also is we had to put this money into

the base budget of the department of defense not into the o.c.o. account. o.c.o. was created because of our contingency operations overseas in afghanistan and iraq. it was created to fund those unpredictable year-by-year needs that arose when you have forces in conflict and in contact. it was not designed to be a fund that we could take care of long term routine demands of the department of defense. interestingly enough, in 2008, we had 187,000 troops deployed in afghanistan and iraq. and if you looked at the o.c.o. number for that year, we were approximate little spending $1 million per troop, all the costs. the fuel, the ammunition, their own safekeeping. today we have 9,930 troops deployed in these combat zones. yet if you looked at the same

ratio that we're asking for in in bill, it's about $9 million per individual soldier sailor, marine and airman. and that shows you that this fund has gone way beyond its intent in the budget control act. it has become an escape valve in the budget control act just for the department of defense. but it is important to recognize that our defense is not just the department of defense. our national security rests on a strong homeland security department that protects our borders. it rests on our border patrol, the coast guard that patrols our waters the justice department, that is f.b.i. agents. we had an incident in massachusetts where an f.b.i. agent and a massachusetts police officer confronted an alleged terrorist. it wasn't military forces. it was police forces, local police forces and f.b.i. agents protecting our neighborhoods and our communities. those functions will not be

funded adequately if we get on this path for o.c.o. in fact, that's my greatest concern. if this was a one-year temporary fix, you might justify it. but what we're seeing is a pathway that's going to take us every year. more o.c.o., more o.c.o., and more interesting and more remote use of o.c.o. funds. that's the way unfortunately it tends to be around here. you go where the money is. and right now the money is in o.c.o. and i think we should step back and do what the chairman has said. we have to fix it. and he is committed to fixing it but we have to begin now. we have to make the case now. we can't simply sit back and say, well, we'll take it up later. and that's at the heart of this. now, the other issue here too is very clear. o.c.o. is not a perfect fix for the department of defense. as the chief of staff of the army said, it's got limits, it's got restrictions. it's one-year funding but it's

there. and they will take the money; we know that. but it's our duty, our responsibility to have a more thoughtful long-term approach. and in doing so, i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. it does not take away the resources. it simply says that these resources will be there once we fix the budget control act. and that's what i hear everyone in this chamber -- practically everyone saying every day. we'll fix it, we'll fix it. when we do, these moneys are already authorized. i am convinced that unless we stand up right now and say hopefully with one voice and say it in a formal way, we have to get on the task of fixing the budget control act days will pass weeks will pass, months will pass. to the detriment of our country to the detriment of our military forces and ultimately we will

find ourselves both in terms of national security and a whole range of programs in a very, very bad position. so i would ask you very much, all my colleagues, to consider this amendment and give it support. and with that, mr. chairman, i would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? mr. reed: mr. president, i would ask for the yeas and nays. i believe the vote on my amendment is in order at this time. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. under the previous order the question occurs on amendment number 1521 offered by the senator from rhode island, mr. reed. the yeas and nays have been

ordered. the clerk will call the roll. snoo vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: have all senators voted? any senator wish to kaipg their vote? if not on this vote, the yeas are 46, the nays are 51678 the amendment is not agreed to. mr. mccain: mr. president i ask consent that the pending a.m.s be temporarily set aside so that senator feinstein may offer amendment 188 and that amendment 1889 then be set aside so that senator fischer may offer amendment 1825. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mrs. feinstein: thank you very

much. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: thank you, mr. president. i call up the mccain-collins mccain-collins-mccain amendment number 1889. the clerk: the senator mrs. feinstein -- officer mr. president, i ask that further read be dispensed with. mrs. fischer: mr. president i call up amendment number 1825. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nebraska mrs. fisher for herself and mr. booker -- mrs. fischer: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that further reading of the weament be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. fischer: mr. president i rise to speak about senate amendment 1825, the maritime administration enhancement act which would reauthorize the

maritime administration for fiscal years 2016 and 2017. mirad will and traditionally has been added to the national defense authorization act on the senate floor. it strengthens our national security through our numerous programs to maintain a u.s. merchant marine fleet. under the bipartisan amendment mirad will authorize $380 million, which is similar to the levels authorized in the house ndaa. this bipartisan agreement to authorize mirad spending above current authorized levels as requested by the white house while providing support to mirad's national and economic defense programs. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: mrs. gillibrand: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york.

mrs. gillibrand: i suggest the absence of a quorum. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the senate is already in a quorum. quorum call:

quorum call:

mrs. gillibrand: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. the senator is advised we're in a quorum call. mrs. gillibrand: i request that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. gillibrand: i'd like to speak on my amendment but not call it up at this moment. it's amendment number 1578. and the purpose of the amendment is to create an unbiased military justice system. i believe the senate needs to vote on this amendment. over the last few years congress has forced the military to make incremental changes to address the crisis of sexual assault. after two decades of complete

failure and lip service to zero tolerance the military now says trust us, they sphin --n the data and hope nobody will dig below the top lines buse when you do you'll find the salt rate as it was -- the assault rate is as it was in 2010. three out of four who are survivors still don't think it is worth the risk of coming forward to report these crimes committed against them. one in seven victims was actually assaulted by someone in their chain of command. and 60% of cases the survivor says a unit leader or supervisor is responsible for sexual harassment or gender discrimination. so it's no surprise then that one in three survivors believe that reporting would hurt their career. for those who do report, they are more likely than not to

experience retaliation. despite the much-touted reform that made retaliation a crime the d.o.d. has made zero progress on improving on the 62% retaliation rate that we had in 2012. so 2012, 62% of those who reported their crime against them were retaliated against for doing so. in 2014, again 62% were retaliated against. now, human rights watch looked into these figures and into these stories and they found that the d.o.d. could not provide a single example from the last year where disciplinarian action was taken against someone for retaliation. a sexual assault survivor is 12 times more likely to suffer retaliation than see the offender get convicted for

sexual assault. in my close review of 107 cases from 2013 from our four largest military bases one for each service, i found that nearly half of those who did move forward to report in an unrestricted report, half of them withdrew from their case during the first year. so we can talk all we want about reporting, reporting. well, if half of those who report withdraw during the year of their prosecution it shows there's no faith in the system. survivors do not have faith in the current system. under any metric, the system remains plagued with distrust and does not provide fair and just process that survivors deserve. simply put the military has not held up to the standard posed by general dempsey one year ago when he said the pentagon was on the clock. i urge my colleagues to hold the military to this higher

standard. let us put these decisions into the hands of trained military prosecutors. enough is enough with the spin, with the excuses and with false promises. we have to do the right thing and we have to act. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. ayotte: mr. president i rise today to speak about an amendment, amendment 1628 to the defense authorization act. this is an amendment that i've offered with senator peters. it has strong bipartisan support. and this is about the threat of tunnels tunnels that are used by terrorists. and we saw those tunnels being used in the 2014 conflict that israel had with hamas. israel found more than 30 terror

tunnels that had been dug by terrorists to infiltrate and attack israel. the israeli military said that these tunnels were intended to carry out attacks such as abductions of israeli citizens and soldiers. infiltrations into israeli communities, mass murders and hostage-taking scenarios. in one disturbing attack in july of 2014, hamas terrorists used one of these terror tunnels to sneak into israel and then attack and kill five israeli soldiers. and this is a picture of one of these terror tunnels. and unfortunately, you can imagine if terrorists can use a tunnel to come into your country, the feeling of fear that can create in the civilian population. terror tunnels are not a new problem. in 2006, terrorists used tunnels to capture israeli soldier

ghalid shalite. they used tunnels to take him and hold him captive for five years. two other soldiers were killed in this same attack where these terror tunnels were used. again, this issue of terror tunnels is not unique to the conflict that the israeli people have been subjected to. in fact, one of israel's primary objectives in operation protective edge last year was to destroy these terror tunnels that pose an unacceptable risk to israelis and to their national security. and that's why many israel has devoted so much attention to this problem and how to destroy these terror tunnels. but not only are terror tunnels a leading security concern for the government of israel. tunnels are being used by terrorists in syria and in iraq. according to a public report yesterday, isis used several dozen tunnel bombs in syria and

used tunnels to help take the iraqi city of ramadi. on march 11, isis reportedly detonated a tunnel bomb under an iraqi army headquarters, killing an estimated 22 people. on march 15, a second tunnel bomb was reportedly used to attack iraqi security forces. terror tunnels can also be used to threaten u.s. embassies and forward-deployed u.s. military personnel. in addition, drug trafficking organizations and international criminal organizations continue to construct tunnels on our southern border in order to illegally move people and drugs and anything else they think will advantage them into the united states. drug cartels are exploiting vulnerabilities on our border and while this undoubtedly affects border communities in border states, it has consequences far beyond the

border states. in my home state of new hampshire, heroin, heroin is killing people in my state and it is a public health epidemic. i've spoken to law enforcement first responders, firefighters, public safety officials and we have seen a dramatic increase in the number of people dying in my state, and according to a recent d.e.a. report and drug control experts, heroin is most commonly being brought to the united states via the southwest border. in many places on our border with mexico, we have fences. unfortunately, these criminals and their syndicates -- and by the way these networks also we've heard from the commander of southern command. he believes they could be used by terrorists if they wanted to infiltrate our country. and unfortunately, they are being dug on our southern border, and this is a picture of actually a tunnel built on our southern border used to smuggle

drugs, to smuggle people, to smuggle anything that criminals and other bad people would want to move into our country. in a two-day period in april alone, two tunnels were discovered between the california-mexico border. these tunnels are often used again to smuggle almost anything you can think of into this country, and drugs to be the most prominent thing smuggled in. according to public records dozens of smuggling tunnels have been discovered on our southern borders since 2006. so the amendment that i have offered to the defense authorization, along with my colleague, senator peters from michigan this is an amendment that builds on a provision that is already in the defense authorization that i had included in section 1272. our amendment promotes and authorizes greater cooperation between israel and the united states to counter terror tunnels

in israel. if we work with close allies like israel to develop better capabilities to detect, map and neutralize tunnels not only can we help defend israel and israel defend itself against terrorist groups like hamas and hezbollah but we can also use the capabilities that we develop together to better protect our own border, our own u.s. embassies and our forward-deployed united states troops. my amendment specifically highlights the tunnel threat on our southern border. it calls on the administration to use the antitunneling capabilities developed to help israel to better protect the united states, and our people and our interests and our border ensure this amendment will help israel our closest and most reliable ally in the middle east. it will help us defeat the use

of terror tunnels and it will better equip officials on our southern border to find and shut down tunnels that are being used to smuggle drugs and can be used to smuggle other dangerous items into the united states of america by these criminal syndicates and again as the commander of our southern command has said he believes this network can also be used by terrorists. not surprisingly, this effort and this amendment has received strong bipartisan support and i want to thank all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that have sponsored this amendment. this is a commonsense amendment and i hope that my colleagues when it is offered for a vote on the senate floor will support this amendment so that we can work with the israeli government that we can share our understanding of how to stop these terror tunnels and we can deploy that same technology on our southern borders to keep our country safe. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor.

and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. cochran: i will defer to the chair. the presiding officer: the quorum call remains. quorum call:

mr. mccain: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that proceedings under the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from arizona is recognized. mr. mccain: the ranking member and i have a small package of amendments that have been cleared by both sides. i would ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up and agreed to en bloc. 1485 hoeven. 1510 heller. 1520 rounds. 1538 wicker. 1579 ernst. 1622 moran.

1799 rubio. 1677 udall. 1701 wyden. 1733 stabenow. 1739 mccaskill. 1744 feinstein. 1781 heitkamp. and 1796, cardin. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the amendments are called up. and agreed to. a senator: i defer to my colleague from north carolina. the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: mr. president i call for the regular order with respect to amendment number 1569. the presiding officer: the amendment is now pending. mr. burr: i send a second-degree amendment to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from north carolina, mr. burr, proposes an amendment numbered 1921 to amendment numbered 1569. mr. burr: i ask consent the reading be dispensed with.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. burr: i yield the floor. mr. wicker: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: it is my privilege to ask unanimous consent that captain matthew t. reader, a marine corps and united states fellow in senator ayotte's office be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wicker: thank you madam president. and at this point i rise in support of the national defense authorization bill and would point out to my colleagues that this is a piece of legislation that for half a century has enjoyed bipartisan support during republican administrations, democratic administrations and during times of majority on the democratic side and on the republican side. now, regrettably last year this chamber did not take up the ndaa

until december, months after it had been approved in committee. i want to -- i want to commend senator levin the former chairman of the armed services committee, for reporting the bill out of his committee during democratic majorities and if he had had his way we would have taken the bills up much earlier. i also want to commend senator mccain our current republican chairman of the armed services committee for again in a timely way reporting this bipartisan bill and then i think commendation is due to the new leadership of the senate, madam president, for taking this bill up in a timely fashion in june rather than waiting till december. now, it's been said by the

distinguished minority leader that taking this bill up is a waste of time because the president has said that he would veto this bill. it's curious that he would say so because this bill funds national security at the amount requested by the president of the united states. so i think to people out there listening in the public it's curious that the president would say i'm going to veto a bill that actually funds security items at the administration's requested level. but i would also point out to my colleagues this -- this is not the first time that the president has issued a veto threat. this happened on the iran nuclear negotiations bill where at first the president said if the house and senate send me such a bill, i'll veto it. but the more we talked about it and the more we brought the american people into the discussion and the more the

light was shown on the issue and american public opinion began to be known the more popular the idea became in the senate foreign relations committee. and at the end of the day it was unanimous or virtually unanimous in the foreign relations committee that the senate and the house should be heard on the issue of any negotiations this administration has the secretary of state might have with the iranian leadership and so at the end of the day it passed overwhelmingly and the president actually changed his mind having said he would veto that iranian nuclear bill, he changed his mind and sent word that he would, in fact, sign it. i would hope the same thing would happen in this situation. i would hope the president would rescind his veto threat and after we've worked our will and after this bill has gone over to a conference committee with the

house of representatives and we've come up with a compromise between the house and the senate i would hope that the president would, in fact, change his mind and change his position as he did on the iranian bill and sign it. so i don't think it's a waste of time and i think it's critical that we do this. you know, it's often that we start off on a bipartisan -- on a partisan basis and i have the highest regard for the ranking member of the armed services committee. he and i served together in the house of representatives it's been my privilege to serve on the committee with the distinguished ranking member for some time. and i think he would acknowledge that we started off the defense markup with all republicans saying they were going to vote for it, with all democrats saying they would be a no vote. but the more we got into that issue, and the more senator mccain began to work with

members on both sides of the aisle, and amendments were offered and debate was held, that opposition began to melt away. so at the end of the day on this bill that is before us today madam president, there were eight democrats who voted aye in the committee and only four democrats who voted no. and as i recall, all of the republicans on the committee voted yes. so it was an overwhelming bipartisan support of something that started off dividing us, republicans versus democrats. it's important that we continue to do that. the focus should be on our national security priorities. the focus should be on the troops and this bill funds the troops in a very meaningful and a very reform-oriented way. and this is necessary under the current times. i want to quote from an earlier

armed services hearing that we had wherein director of national intelligence james clapper warned the committee -- and i will quote the director of national intelligence -- unpredictable instability is the new normal. unpredictable instability is the new normal. he pointed out last year was the most lethal year for global terrorism in 45 years. well it so happens that we've only been keeping statistics on the lethal degree of terrorism for 45 years. so this is in the recorded 45-year history of keeping tabs on this, this is the most lethal year, this past year. tough times dangerous times. this was underscored by former secretary of state henry kissinger when he testified at a hearing before the committee earlier this year.

he said -- and i quote -- "the united states has not faced a more diverse and complex array of crises since the end of the second world war" -- unquote. this is a dangerous world. this is a dangerous time. we have a bill that addresses these times and i think we should move forward with it. the obama administration may be unwilling to admit that the world is less safe, but there's no denying the extraordinary challenges. and i think members on both sides of the aisle would acknowledge this. isis or isil the newly resurgent and aggressive russia and what they've done in invading the crimea and eastern ukraine, the havoc across the middle east in nations like yemen and syria nations that are collapsing into chaos these are serious times and yet

our president said on the european continent yesterday we don't have a complete strategy for dealing with isis in iraq. madam president, this is not a time to block resources that our military needs. as a matter of fact, it's a time for us to act as americans and not as partisans. there are several reasons why passing this bill this month should not be controversial. first, it would authorize the same amount of funding as requested by the president. second it contains one of the most substantive defense reforms we've seen in years. it would adopt $10 billion worth of efficiencies that would pave the way for long-term savings at the department of defense. third, the bill champions greater efficiency by reducing bureaucracies at the pentagon and reforming the weapons

acquisition system. just because we need to spend more money for defense doesn't mean we need to spend more money to hire bureaucrats and staffers at the pentagon. fourthly it's very important to point out the reforms in this bill make sure that the men and women who fight for our country country, including those who are wounded or who have retired have the quality of life, health care and support they deserve. fifth, this bill would modernize the military retirement system, something that has been recommended to us by experts in the military and by retired military people. it would not only extend benefits to more service members, but also give them more value it would give our service members more choice in their retirement system. too many of our members are being excluded from the current system. maintaining our all-volunteer force requires taking care of

those who have chosen to serve. now, let me give a big shoutout and thank you to senator mazie hirono my ranking member on the sea power subcommittee. we've worked closely on the sea power mark of this legislation and i regret that senator hirono and i couldn't -- couldn't do our two speeches on this bill together. that was our intent, for me to speak as chair and for her to speak as ranking member because we have cooperated so much in our sea power title. our title in the bill addresses shortfalls in navy's ability to meet requirements. we have 30 ships and our navy's amphibious fleet is much smaller than the marine corps tells us is required. last year the chief of naval operations admiral jonathan

greenhart said more like 50 ships are required if we want to do everything the military is being asked to do. so we need to address this and at least move from 30 ships toward that goal of 50 that admiral greenhart suggested. this year's ndaa would authorize $199 million for an additional america class amphibious assault ship as well as $80 million in research and development. these send a powerful message to anyone who would be our adversary, these ships are known as the swiss army knives of the sea because they're so versatile and because they respond to so many of threats including counterterrorism, piracy combat missions and humanitarian crises. we also recognize the need to modernize our submarine fleet and, again, thank you to senator hirono, the ranking member for working with us on this.

the sea power subcommittee is preparing for the eventual construction of the ohio-class replacement submarine program. this is an expensive program. it's necessary madam president. but it's expensive and we are about the business of providing the necessary funds to mitigate higher costs for the submarine program in our shipbuilding budget. so i'm so pleased that we addressed these sea power needs. in addition we do our best to meet the needs of the national guard, to support a modern fleet for the army, for mental health services, for our troops and veterans and the protection for our service members' religious convictions. it is a comprehensive reform bill that ought to have the same sort of bipartisan support that we've had for the last 50 years. we need a bill, in conclusion,

madam president, that takes an honest look at our current challenges and implements necessary reforms. i'm pleased to say that this bill does so and i hope we move forward, get past this moment of suiting up in a partisan fashion and send this bill with an overwhelming vote from the united states senate. thank you madam president. and i yield the floor. mr. sanders: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: madam president it sometimes happens that issues of enormous consequence seem to be ignored and don't get anywhere near the discussion that it requires. and one such issue which needs to be put on the table needs to be dealt with, needs to be resolved is the crisis in youth unemployment in america

in general and specifically among black and hispanic youth. madam president, let me provide you with some new information that i recently received from the economic policy institute one of the important nonpartisan economic think thanks our country. -- think tanks in our country. what this information tells us is the level of youth unemployment in this country has reached tragic dimensions and it is especially tragic for the african-american and hispanic communities. the economic policy institute recently analyzed census data on unemployment among young people those people who are either jobless those people who have given up looking for work, or those people who are working part time when they want

to work full time. in other words what real unemployment is about. and, madam president this is what they found. they found that during april of 2014 to march of 2015, the average real unemployment rate for black high school graduates age 17 to 20 was 51.3%. let me repeat. that over the last year, from april, 2014, to march of 2015 the average real unemployment rate for black high school graduates was 51.3%. the jobless figure for hispanics in the same age group was 36.1%, and for young white high school graduates the number

was 33.8%. madam president, this is an issue that cannot be ignored. an entire generation of young people who are trying to get their lives together, trying to earn some money trying to become independent are unable to find work, and this is an issue that must be dealt with. madam president even young americans with a college degree are finding it increasingly difficult to get a job. the real unemployment rate for young black college graduates between the ages of 21 and 24 was 23%. the figure for hispanics was 22.4%. and the figure for whites was 12.9%. madam president today in america, over 5.5 million young people have either dropped out

of high school or have graduated high school and do not have jobs. and it is no great secret that without work, without education without hope, people get into trouble. and the result is -- and this is not unrelated -- the result is that tragically in america today we have more people in jail than any other country on earth including china and authoritarian communist -- including china an authoritarian communist country with a population four times ours. how does that happen, that in this great one of country of ours, we have more people in prison than an authoritarian country of china? we have 25% of the world's prisoners. incredibly over 3% of our country's population is under some form of correctional

control. and according to the naacp from 1980 to 2008, the number of people incarcerated in america quadrupled from roughly a half a million to 2.3 million people. madam president if current trends continue, the estimate is that one in three black males born today can expect to spend time in prison during his lifetime. this is an unspeakable tragedy. this is an issue that has got to be put on the table and has got to be discussed. but this crisis is not just a destruction of human life, it is also a very, very costly issue to the taxpayers of our country. in america we now spend nearly $200 billion a year on public safety including $70 billion on correctional facilities each and

every year. madam president, it is beyond comprehension that we as a nation have not focused attention on the fact that millions of our young people are unable to find work or begin their careers in a productive economy. and this is an issue that we must deal with, and i will do everything i can -- and i know i speak for the senator from michigan -- that we will make sure that this country pays attention to this issue and deals with this issue. and let me tell you that, in my view it makes a lot more sense to invest in jobs for our young people in education for our young people, than spending incredible amounts of money on jails and incarceration. let's give these kids a shot at life. let's give them a chance. let's not be locking them up. so the time is long overdue for us to start investing in our young people, to help them get the jobs they need, to help them

get the education they need, and to help them get the job training they need so they can be part of the american middle class. the answer to unemployment aferredzandpoverty is not and cannot be the mass incarceration of young americans of all races. it is time to bring hope and economic opportunity to communities throughout this country. last week i introduced legislation with congressman john conyers and senator debbie stabenow to provide $5.5 million to immediately begin funding states and localities throughout this country to employ one million young people between the ages of 16 and 24 and provide job training to hundreds of thousands of young americans. now, some people say well, this isance spnsive proposition -- this is an expensive proposition. i guarantee that you this investment will save money because it is a heck of a lot more money -- cost to be putting people in jail than to be

providing them job training. so, madam president i just wanted to mention that this is an issue that has got to be discussed. i look forward to working with the cosponsor of this legislation, senator stabenow, and we will -- we will bring ateption toattention to this issue and i would yield the floor. ms. stabenow: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, madam president. before the senator from vermont leaves, i want to indicate that i am very proud to be partnering with him on this and how important it is that we give young people the opportunity for jobs. we were successful in the last immigration bill adding some dollars to be able to create funding for young people. youth unemployment is a huge, huge issue and we need to give them a path forward on jobs and economic opportunity. i want to thank the senator from vermont. i also with a nts want to indicate

that i am very, very disappointed that senator reed's amendment was not successful and that, unfortunately, today it was voted down on a partisan vote when we all know that there are way too many budget gimmicks in this authorization as important as it is, and that what we ought to be doing is making sure all the security needs of our families not just those in the department of defense but those in other parts of the budget, have the adequate resources that they need so our families are truly safe. i want to speak specifically about another piece of making sure we have safety, and that's economic safety and security and speak about something that also deserves our time and attention and whose time is running out right now.

we have 52 days, madam president -- 52 days -- before the highway trust fund is empty shut down. 52 days. we've not yet down even one hearing in the finance committee, and i respectfully ask our chairman, who i have tremendous respect for that we need to be having hearings and discussions and working together on how we're going to fund this. we've not seen yet legislation on the floor that would allow us to move forward on a long-term funding bill for economic security and our republican colleagues need to be joining with us and providing leadership on this issue that affects millions of jobs and frankly affects every single american. you know, there was a time when republicans were the leaders on building our roads and bridges

and airports and railroads and all of our infrastructure, and that came in the form of president eisenhower, who said in 1952, "a network of modern roads is a necessity -- is necessary to our national defense, just as necessary as it is to our national economy and our personal safety." necessary to our national defense. we're on the floor talking about legislation to authorize moving forward to support our troops, making sure that we are authorizing programs for our national defense and yet president eisenhower said in 1952 "a network of modern roads is as necessary to our national defense as it is to our national economy and our own personal safety." but in 52 days, there will be zero in our nation's highway trust fund -- zero.

you know, by the late 1950's our interstate highways were responsible for 31% of the annual economic growth of our country an economic engine of our country. thanks to president eisenhower's leadership, our roads in the mid20th century were the envy of the world. and now we see other countries who want to be like america a global economic power, who are rushing to investment in their roads and bridges and airports and railroads and other infrastructure. certainly china and brazil -- we see china with 9% of their g.d.p. being invested in those things that will allow they to create jobs and be a world economic power wooing people there because they have the mod modern infrastructure.

and we are playing catch-up. frankly, we are playing catch-up and there is absolutely no reason that should be happening. our european competitors spend twice what we do on transportation twice what we do do funding critical roads and bridges and other transportation needs. the chinese government spends four times what we're spending right now. the world economic forum's global competitiveness report for 2014 and 2015 ranks america 16th in the quality of our roads. 16th in the world one spot behind luxembourg and one spot just ahead of crow a croatia. can you imagine? we're just ahead of croatia in investing all of those things

that create economic security and in the words of president iceeisenhower, "national security." in 2002, america had the fifth-best transportation system in the world. in 2002. in their most recent rankings, we were 24th -- 24th. the american society of civil engineers' most recent report card for america's infrastructure our transportation our roads bridges gave us a "d" on our roadsroads -- a "d." i don't think any of us would be happy in our if our children brought home a report card that had a "d" on it. and yet that's what we're seeing in congress, a report card being presented to the american people which has a "d" on it. it said that 42% of major urban

highways are congested and that it costs over $100 billion -- $101 billion in wasted fuel and time every year. one of my constituents recently told me he had a pothole on the way to detroit metro airport and he had to replace all four tires on his car. he actually went through seven tires in one year. that's a lot of money. that's a lot of tires. seven tires in one year because of the bad roads in michigan. the average michigan resident spends $357 a year on repairing the damage from their automobiles caused by broken roads. and that's more than twice the amount that average people pay in taxes to go to improving our roads and bridges. more than twice what it would take to actually fix our roads and bridges and actually be able to move forward. it's not fair.