with the men and women whose served it. i urge my colleagues to read "the new york times" to respond to the worst refugee crisis in generations. 11 million people were uprooted last year by $0.5 bus by conflict in syria and iraq and afghanistan and has also pushed tens of thousands out of sub-saharan africa. the worst migration and crisis since world war ii according to the united nations that is what is going on in the world and how we will defend the nation with friday's that are dramatically strewed and unfair. with the office on the fringe of baghdad said

justin day the militants described in a military uniform kill the least eight people just like fallujah in western iraq on tuesday and by the islamic state. the u.s. army made website is down the syrian electronic army is giving credits they packed the official web site the twitter account associated with the account on monday this site was down in the afternoon while screen shots posted by the group showed messages of support for the beleaguered president bashaw are all aside. of according to the "washington post".

the world islamic state to have seized a power plant which supplies central and western parts of the country with electricity. the group paramilitary's source said on tuesday. the plant was taken on social media that the capture of the plant meant the militants have driven them out of the entire city. libya descended into chaos and isis extends its influence. libyan gains may offer isis' the base for new attacks as the islamic state scores new victories with the syrian iraq the affiliate is also

on the offensive to consolidate control of the gadaffi former home town staging a bomb attack on the major city with the growth with a devastating civil war. and with north africa. and june 9th isis' captures crasher - - christiansen in libya. the group kidnapped from of people smuggler caravan last week a u.s. defense official confirmed on monday. so if it continues the onslaught fighting the war

on to friends me whereas thousands of troops are against the ukraine's territory. with get illegal annexation of crimea. the "wall street journal" journal", president obama address the anti-isis strategy is not complete. he doesn't give many press conferences at home so sometimes the most revealing moments is when he is abroad. and held to a question in is in iraq offering an

explanation for the islamic states is that going so well there requires commitments on the parts of the iraqis how the training takes place so the details are not worked out. still to not have a strategy to counter the islamic state that took control of mosul one year ago and be headed americans all the world to see last summer. obama announced his anti-strategy promising to destroy the sauce style of physis but here we are nine months later. it has overrun the gateway to baghdad with the alliance

said the president promised that barely exist with the lack of weapons to forestall a major assault and the obama campaign and it is under way. members only and i know my colleagues are waiting to speak. with the syrian air raid kills 49 in the northwestern village. on monday they killed the least 49 people to leave the survivors in english as they pull bodies from the rubble

-- rubble of the aftermath. said two air raids that wounded others the observatory for human-rights including six children said the death toll could rise although summer still missing. with the of bloomberg few -- the you those spending billions of dollars to prop up the syrian dictator and other outside experts these are higher than what the barack obama administration

is negotiating a nuclear deal and orders to stabilize the middle east. to take over those cabinet positions and june 5th report one china has begun to dispatch those vessels off the coast of hawaiian response to the monitoring activities of the south china sea. between china and the united states and "the financial times" u.s. struggles for strategy to contain with the efforts in the south china

sea has left u.s. struggling to come up with a response. the chinese land creation has helped to make allies out of adversaries not out of domination. the latest example was the trip to vietnam by ashton and carter but there is the limit to how far countries in the region can present a united front to china over the last 18 months according to mr. carter the administration is censure house strongly it should push back to u.s. officials see as a long-term chinese clan fight to control the region's waters. finally, actually this is a

piece from "politico" today united states does have a strategy referring to a specific plan of the iraqi security forces and the pentagon is working on that plan right now. absolutely have a strategy from msnbc. i would be overjoyed to have a complete strategy presented to the congress and the american people it would be a wonderful event. the fact is they have no strategy or policy and the world is on fire and here we are. going to try to pass an

amendment to have though wherewithal to defend this nation for i hope my colleagues will strongly reject the amendment pending before this body. i yield the floor. >> the senator from rhode island. >> i would ask unanimous consent to add senator mikulski, a senator udall, senator leahy, senator boxer, senator mendez mendez, senator feinstein feinstein, senator carded, and senator peters as co-sponsors of the amendment 1521. >> without objection. >> mr. president i rise to discuss my amendment 1521 of the of $50 billion in dhl

for overseas contingency operation until all budget caps for defense and nondefense i recognize sydney -- the need freddie rejects the way the fund is used and no way to circumvent the budget control act. and it does so on sound ground over the long run would be beneficial to be engaged is the defense of the united states. while all issues are important occasionally to face an issue that could change the course of our nation because the consequences have not been known for years but are very difficult when taken but they are very important to.

one example is iraq. 13 years ago the majority of the party has senators from both parties to go to war. i did not vote in favor. i have spoken against it in the all come was very different about the true course of thousands of lives lost. if we thought the united states is for over a decade but there of the hook for chileans of dollars with factions to new threats we are facing today. back then it was implied that opposing the iraq war was on national security and they have shown that to be inaccurate.

but we hear an echo to the rhetoric if you don't support this version then you don't support the troops of two terms like taking a hostage and that is not the case. it is 2005 republicans vote against cloture on the national defense authorization bill 10 times over the same period to have final passage on the senate floor eight times. sometimes it was because of policy like "don't ask, don't tell" sometimes it was gas prices or other issues. i don't think anyone has ever done at otherwise. we cannot change history but we can learn from it we cannot see the future but we must plan for it to make strategic investments today

this debate boils down to what is the most effective way to provide for the national defence. i don't think inflating the account is the way to go. it complicates rather than helps the problem and does not allow the military to plan for the future we need to replace the senseless sequester with a balanced approach to keep america safe at home and abroad. when it comes to the defense budget congress should have the save the standards of honesty and transparency that we demand of our troops but there is a serious disconnect and congress needs to step up. the president's fiscal year budget request was $3 billion above the budget

control act. the president requested that $30 billion to be authorized as part of the annual budget so they could be part of the defense department funding not just for one year but in the budget for the indefinite period of time. also contains $50 billion for a truly for rebated expenses. however this bill does not address the impacts on defense and nondefense instead it turns to a gimmick. this bill initially transferred $39 billion from the base budget request from the president to the oco

budget leaving a base budget below the levels of order to avoid automatic reductions of sequestration. funding shifted to oco is for military services not directly or related cause for those that were generated in iraq or afghanistan or elsewhere. it also includes aircraft the ships and submarines all trained to support the national military strategy. these are not oco expenses but the expenses of the department of defense facing a long-term challenge of the united states to maintain the long-term capabilities of the united states defense forces. some have said we should avoid cut spending with the budget control through this oco approach to eliminate

the caps. i could not disagree more. because if we use this approach for one year of this gimmick it is easier to do with the next year and the year after and the year after that to ensure that imbalance between security and domestic spending. using oco in this way is counter to the intent of the budget control act. imposed proportionate equal cuts of defense and nondefense spending to force the bipartisan compromise. this approach unilaterally is not part of that approach rather than have a permanent solution to sequestration and it is essentially exempts defense spending in reduces all pressure of the

solution of domestic spending priorities. the president's defense budget request placed the needed funding where it should be to provide those other overseas tour existed day. the budget resolution that the president's request for funding it is not a question and if they ask for a certain amount of money. what they did is essentially said we will not technically violate the bca account we will just move more money to eric oco so we can stand up with a straight face to say every agency has the same type of cuts that the bca proposes but the truth is

through oco that does not apply. and when you looked at the president's request he asked the $37 billion for all other domestic agencies of the of the bca caps and without that money they will have a very difficult or perhaps impossible challenge to meet the basic needs of the american public, said he said every colleague in this chamber recognizes, as some might disagree but they recognize we need to support education and as we have done for decades her title one and to support people through senior housing programs with every state and every community that has to be done. if we follow the path it is harder and harder for the

non-defense agencies to do this. so what we have created is the bca from defense. the president in my colleagues are not arguing they picked the same numbers but what they have done is funded that not straight forward to recognize we have to deal with it by using this gimmick. if there remains is the bill i believe this approach is a magnet for nondefense spending in future years. not only will they become addicted to use the oco spending than many will find their way into the accounts. for example, fiscal year 1982 congress added breast

cancer research at the time discretionary spending was subject to statutory caps with the budget enforcement act of 1998 was the follow-on of 1985. what we had done is establish funds of discretionary domestic spending and that is precisely the effect of this proposal today. the initial funding led to the establishment of the directed medical research program. everyone is familiar with this program and i would suspect every senator would say that research on breast cancer is so important and so critical. and has strong bipartisan support to have hundreds of millions of dollars.

. . 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. just like this approach today and it will be replicated. and looking forward ten years, i would suggest that you will see lots of programs that bear less and less collectivity through the overseas operations included if that's the way we choose to get around and that's what this legislation is doing. >> there is another point has to be made. moving the funding from the base it has no impact on reducing the

deficit. the emergency funding are outside the budget caps for a reason. they are for the course of the ongoing military operations or respond to the other unforeseen events like natural disasters to suddenly ignore the true purpose of the treaty or the budgetary gimmick. it is unacceptable use of this important tool. just to highlight how this approach was accused of spending these overseas funds are used to support the forces overseas. there better be some relationship between the number of the forces overseas and at the spending. let's see. in 2008 at the height of the nations amendment in iraq and afghanistan, 187,000 troops deployed.

we spent approximately $1 million in the funding for every service member deployed to those countries. under this bill, we would expand approximately $9 million for every service member deployed to iraq and afghanistan. roughly 9,930 military personnel's. so we are doing more than spending on this bill. it circumvents the law. it's not fiscally responsible and it's not an honest accounting for the american public. if here's a at 1,187,000 troops out costs were about a million dollars of troops and now they

are 9 million, something is a skewed. and adding to the fun it doesn't solve the budgetary problems. it has to be followed and so so and headed to buy in heaven to divide that it might not help us it's based on the long-term military strategy which requires the dod to focus at least five years in the future a a one year plus that does not provide dod with a certainty and stability of the budget. as general dempsey the a general dempsey the chairman of the joint chiefs testified they need to fix the base budget. we won't have the certainty we need.

if there is a year-by-year fix. the defense secretary added that raising it doesn't allow the defense to plan efficiently or strategically. adding the funds funds as a manager he only unsound approach for the multi-year budget process. according to the chief of staff army general alan the current restrictions on the employment will not allow it to be a prophet to offset the reduction in the base budget that is driven by the current proposals before congress. in order to meet the needs of the army at best upgrade its flexibility and it must be less restrictive and enable us to sustain and marginalize as we go forward. this undermines the morale of the troops and the families who want to know their futures are planned for more than one year at a time and they are confident that partners rely on what is available to the troops are also

tested. it was undermining support for the critical mechanism used for the funding an incremental course of overseas conflicts. we have to have a fiscal system for the trained ready force. the administration indicated that the legislation implementing the majority budget framework will be subject. as the secretary said this approach is a road to nowhere. i say this because president obama has already made clear that he will not accept the budget that locks locks into sequestration going forward as this approach and he won't accept the link between the national security and the economic security. and we talk about national security. true national security requires that the non- dod departments and agencies also receive the relief from the caps.

but they simply cannot meet the national security challenges without the help of the other governmental agencies including state of homeland security and 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 shares the burden that will grow with the agencies are not adequately funded as well. there is a symbiotic relationship in the department of defense and other department and agencies that contribute. it has to be recognized that he truly whole of government approach requires more than just a strong dod. the caps are based on a misnomer that discretionary spending is divided into security and no one security spending. but the members need to be

clear. essential security functions are performed by the governmental agencies and departments other than the defense department. according to the commander general kelly, we do not and we cannot do this mission alone. our strong partnerships with a u.s. interagency especially with the department of homeland security, the u.s. coast guard, the drug enforcement administration to the federal bureau of investigation and the department of treasury and state are in trouble to ensure the defense of the homeland. and as the retired marine corps said if you don't find the state fully than i need to buy more indian ocean. the general best illustrated in the administration's nine lines of efforts to counter the so-called islamic state of iraq and isis which 83% of americans

think is the number one threat to the united states. of the administration's nine lines of effort only to our insecurity intelligence and the responsibility of the department of defense and intelligence community. the remaining seven elements of our counter strategy are on the heavily armed departments and agencies. for example, one, supporting the effective governance in iraq no amount of military systems in the government of iraq will be affected in the threat in iraq if the government doesn't gmore transparent and inclusive manner that gives sunnis hope. they are for the reconciliation and build in the unity of iraq e. people needed to defeat isis

that is in the defense department initiative. the efforts are to build the capacity of the iraqi security forces and other partners are funded by the defense department the state department and usaid are responsible for billions of dollars and across a broad spectrum of activities. under the republican plan, none of the state programs would be up. the gap is a threat to the nation's efforts to combat. we have to disrupt the finances. the expansion has given access to significant and diverse sources of funding. the financing will require the state department and the treasury department to work with

their foreign partners and banking sectors to ensure the counter sanctions regime is implemented and enforced. these state and treasury led efforts are essentially deemed not security activities and under the republican approach, they disrupt the finances that are hampered. it's also noted that the office of the asset control and office of terrorism and financial intelligence in the treasury department also categorized as nonsecure activities in the caps. the republican strategy not only means that there were counter efforts will be hampered but so too would the efforts to impose effective sanctions against the individuals to support their activities would also be effective. we have to continually expose the nature. our strategic communications command requires the government

effort including the state department, voice america usaid. the republican approach to funding the strategic communication strategies part of the government plan or to knock a hole of the government plan. we have to disrupt the foreign fighters. they are the lifeblood yet ended up with that of the land security they would be facing cuts under the republican budget proposal undermining the flow to see her yet in iraq. and in the foreign partners to pass the law more effectively on their books. again our first agency typically responds to the refugees as usaid. the agency for international development and other state agencies. we will not be able to deal with

that issue if those budget caps are imposed upon usaid and other agencies and these camps are one of the breeding grounds for the foreign fighters in the conflict zone. unless we do something than plus up a defense we will not achieve true national security. and of course we have to protect the homeland. it is an effort to play the game of smoke and beers beer is with the american public.

the agency komodo dragon first agency to pick up intelligence about the threats to the nation all of them vitally contribute to the national security but they would be treated distinctly different if we adopt the approach that is inherent in the defense authorization bill. and i talked about the questions and virtually none of the questions that support the humanitarian efforts in the region are secured to the coup considered. military commanders that would tell you that the state coming usaid the the office of foreign disaster assistance are critical to through the efforts and this is particularly true in the counter campaign. again those refugees that are flooding into the country's adjacent to syria and iraq, they have to be dealt with locally only ground but also the potential sources of the foreign fighters and that is going to require a whole of government

approach not simply to beef up the defense spending. taken together, the republican plan could compromise the campaign with significant alliance of the resources needed to do the job to protect the american people. the men and women of our military are here to protect this nation and overseas fighting for our ideals. including the good education, economic opportunities, safe communities committee efforts to support these goals would be hampered unless the civilian agencies also received a release from the tap. i had the privilege of fort bragg north carolina and for many reasons including to give people a chance in this country not just to protect them from a

foreign direct. by the way to our servicemembers and their families rely on many of the services provided by the department of the agencies. the national institutes of health funded research including by contributing the advance efforts on the range or postherpetic stress and suicide prevention to for the department of human services medicare providing health care for the retirees and disabled individuals and medicaid which provides service to parents including military parents with children with special needs. and so to provide to the department of agencies also shortchanged veterans receive employment services transition assistance and homeless support.

not only is this a fun show and of failing to support potentially our servicemen through schooling and other aspects. it's also tied to our economic security. secretary carter made this very clear. he said the approach that is being proposed as regards the entering long-term connection between the nations security and many other factors. like the scientific to keep up the technological edge education to, education for the future all volunteer military force in the general economic strength of the country. where will we get a soldier of the future that has the skills and the training and the expertise if we are under investing a basic education for all of our citizens? by amendment would keep the pressure on for the permanent solution to the sequestration by

requiring that the baby element needed for increased the proportionality of equal amounts for security and known nonsecurity spending before the additional funds. let me again emphasize we are not taking away these funds. we are simply saying what makes a great deal of sense until we develop an approach to dca that allows a comprehensive sense of the nation and to invest in the economic health of the nation these funds will be reserved. once we do that, that automatically all of the funding inherited and will becomes available. it's to end the sequestration.

every uniformed serviceman become every chief of service set service said the set up a number one priority is to end the sequestration, and the dca this bill doesn't do it. it sidesteps 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 thoughtful to resolve these. the legislation that i proposed recognizes the need for resources, but recognizes that they would be overarching the issue. unless we are able to effectively modify or eliminate our confidence of national security would be threatened our economic aspirations for the country could be thwarted. my amendment seeks to implement either way it stands sends for the senate that is already in

the bill. and it clearly states relief should include equal defenses defenses and nondefense relief. we have made a come and i would commend the chairman for this the statement without an effective means of implementation, the statement, and aspirational goal that we should fix and leave the defense and nondefense relief, the nondefense spending. and i think that is an important statement. but. i believe very strongly in this amendment and i believe that it goes to the heart of the most important question that we face in the country today of how do

we essentially provide for a defense of the complaints of defense in the nation. how do we invest in our people so that we will be able to be strong. and we do not provide this type of a mechanism to start this discussion and hopefully promptly completed, then we will be missing not only a short opportunity that we will be locking ourselves to the room that will lead us less secure in the future, less productive, less strong as a nation. the purpose of the bill is authorized for the military activities of the office of defense. we have to begin this by recognizing that it will not help us going forward and that we must move to modify or repeal

and i would close basically saying again if we continue these it will harm the military reform 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 the contingency fund for the true contingency overseas but doesn't turn things upside down and make it the part of the bill in so many respects. do we have to work together? to make sure every federal agency can benefit because every agency contributes to the country. as i strongly urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment, to

online store.org. >> next education undersecretary ted mitchell.

under the new act and obama's plan to make the first two years of community college free. this is from a forum on college host. it's just over two hours. >> i'd like to welcome all of you here today and those of you watching the live stream. this event is made possible by the gates foundation and the women's foundation. we would love for you to share your comments and questions via facebook and twitter.

if you have a question just go ahead and line up and please state your name and organization. we also are taking questions via twitter and you can use the # ask mj. if you haven't already please download the app and you can learn about our program. we will be using that moving forward. sixty years ago pres. lyndon johnson signed the higher education act into law with the goal of making college more affordable and more assessable for students.

what reforms and innovations are needed? here's a brief overview of the event which features two keynote speakers. first secretary of education ted mitchell will take the stage followed by lamar alexander. to close up the program our staff correspondent will moderate our expert panel discussion. just a reminder you can use twitter and facebook during our program. please welcome to the stage u.s.

president undersecretary ted mitchell. >> good morning everyone. it looks like we've got quite a good group. thanks to the national journal the gates foundation for inviting me to be a part of this. the next american series is important because we need more than ever strategic thinking and action as we attack the unprecedented challenges and opportunities presented by this

legislation. we are redefining what colleges how much it costs and how much it should cost. it's important to take note of what happened in the last century. both laws advance the advanced the idea and made a commitment to equal access to a quality education is a moral imperative and a civil right in america. when they signed it in 1965 they called it a promise that leadership of our country believe it is the obligation of our nation to provide and permit and assist every child born in these borders to receive all the education that they can take. since then it has been our mission to make that promise real for every student. we've made progress but the task

has never been more urgent and our work is far from complete. president obama captured the urgency of higher education for all with the goal that he set soon after taking office that america will again have the best educated population and the most competitive works out force, measured in part by americans leading the way in postsecondary degrees and credentials. to achieve that goal we worked with partners at the national state, local and institutional level to strengthen the educational pipeline. we've been modernizing the teaching profession and making college affordability college quality and completion for all

students a top priority. we look forward to deepening that in the conversations ahead i had on the higher education act reauthorization. today thanks to the hard work of educators, families and communities that we have a high graduation with. the biggest gain is being made by low income, students of color and disability. the achievement gap has begun to close as we reach this historic milestone where the majority of our students in the educational system are now coming from minority communities. we can now equipped minority students with better skills to be prepared for college and later in life.

administration has certainly tried they've increased the total aid available to students. they've created tax benefits that add up to $12 billion of resources to families. as a result more are going to college than ever before. still despite that financing completion is complicated. especially for those new to the college experience, displaced workers, veterans, and working individuals. it is a result of opportunity and is an opportunity for us to think differently about higher education.

families it can be hard to gauge what will be expected and secure the funds that will be needed. too often and for too long our most honorable students end up with no degree and debt that can persist for years. this too has to change. why? well first and foremost this is a matter of principle. opportunity for everyone, that's the north star. this is also about the prosperity and never in our history has the ability to complete college exam been important for our national competitiveness.

college, college, the ticket to the middle class must not become a ledger luxury good. there is good news. we've seen reform on campuses and national networks. we need to bring these islands together to create an overall goal for the future. overall one of the best pieces of news is the consensus that the president said in this state of the union address, universal access to education extends from pre-k up until college. we need to set plans to increase college graduation rates. we are seeing more enrollment in

high school programs and programs that ensure a seamless transition. inspiring the administrations own ideas. we need a nonprofit and coalition effort to help meet the president's goals we need technology to both broaden and deepen and often lower costs for education. all of this suggests that this is a hopeful time for higher education. managing change at this particular time in a way that benefits all students will take

institutions, accreditors, nonprofits and congress and unprecedented in investment and innovation. were innovating at the federal level. as you earn loan repayment policies they are trying to make the task to repay loans possible. were using loans to find out what works for adult learners and adopt those processes nationwide. we are continuing to hold institutions accountable to prove the value of their

programs and protect students and to safeguard the taxpayers. since taking office, the presidents objectives for higher education, recognizing both the opportunities and challenges facing our nation have been consistently aimed at meeting the north star goal of quality education for everyone. we must ensure affordability and improve outcome. we have set the course for this effort working with congress whenever possible to make sure that we take action to make continued progress to make sure all americans have the knowledge and skills they need to grow our economy and strengthen our nation. some of this work was accomplished without funding but more work remains that requires legislative action to protect what we have