s out. we have plenty of time to sit down and work out an agreement that both sides can live with. it appears to me what the republicans are doing that we're headed for another shutdown. they did it once. they're going to do it again. they don't want to do anything now. they want to wait until the fiscal year ends and then close up government. there is no reason for this to become yet another manufactured crisis, and that's what we have here. we can -- i repeat -- months before the funding for government runs out do something about it. do they desire another closed government? i hope not but it appears that's where we're headed. the republicans are unwilling to do things that are real. so i urge my republican colleagues to change course instead of barreling ahead with bills they know are going to fail. the defense authorization bill, the president is going to veto. and the veto will be upheld.

we'll do it over here. but, mr. president, the house has already already has enough votes to sustain the president's veto. they're moving forward for reasons i don't fully understand. i urge them to change course. work with us to forge an agreement that can get signed into law. the majority leader and his party can continue to ignore and procrastinate all they want but eventually we'll need to negotiate a budget free of sequestration, a budget that be protects our military and also non-defense, our middle class. eventually we'll need to reauthorize the export-import bank i repeat -- which saves hundreds of thousands of jobs and responsible for billions of dollars in u.s. exports. eventually we'll need to find some way to fund on a long-term basis our american highways. we have 50% of our highways are deficient. 64,000 bridges 50% of those are

instruct rale deficient -- structurally deficient. on the memorial bridge they are close cking two lanes of -- closing two lanes of that because it is rotted away. so why wait? instead of waiting for the president to veto their sham funding mechanism and scrambling to craft a last-minute continuing resolution, the republicans should work with us on a bipartisan resolution now. ready to work with republicans to pass legislation that keeps america safe and protects the middle class but to do that our republican colleagues will have to first pull their head out of the sand. the presiding officer: under the previous order the leerved. under the previous-- the leerved -- the leadership time is reserved.

we'll be in morning business for one hour with republicans controlling the first half and democrats controlling the second half. mr. durbin: mr. president we're considering this l bill. it is a major undertaking. it comes up every year. it is the department of defense authorization act. it is an extraordinarily important bill. it literally authorizes programs for the defense of america. we have two able leaders who brought the bill to the floor. the chairman of the armed sstleses -- services committee john mccain, a man i entered the house with many years ago and a man whose reputation for service to america is well known, someone who served in the united states navy, was a prisoner of war during the vietnam war and has been a leader in speaking out on behalf of the military throughout his life. it's built into his family. it's built into his soul. on our side, we have the senator

from jack reed from rhode island. senator reed is a graduate of the west point military academy. he served as well in the active army. and he brings that service and that part of his life to his work on the democratic side of the aisle when it comes to putting this bill together. i don't think we could have picked two more able leaders from the senate, a republican and a democrat, to bring this bill to the floor. they have their differences but for the most part they agree on this bill. it was troubling this morning to hear the republican majority leader suggest that the differences we have over this bill suggest a lack of commitment by democrats to the military of the united states. that's not true and it's not fair. we are as committed on our side of the aisle as those on the other side of the aisle when it comes to the men and women in uniform committed to making certain that they have what they need to be trained to fight

effectively and to come home safely. we're also committed to bringing them home to a welcoming america, preparing veterans programs for the rest of their lives so that they can have productive lives and happy lives after having risked their lives for america. so to suggest that the republicans are for the military and the democrats are against it i really regret that the majority leader made that suggestion. both sides are committed. both the chairman and the ranking member are committed. but what is the issue that divides us when it comes to this bill? it is basically an issue of funding. here's what it comes down to. we have a budget control act and if we don't hit the numbers in spending, in comes sequestration. what is sequestration? it's an across-the-board cut. we don't want to see that happen. we've seen it and we know what it does. it was devastating to the department of defense when it went into sequestration.

i know because i chaired the appropriations committee and i listened to the secretary of defense and the leaders from our branches and services tell us it's impossible for us to budget an effective national security if we have to wonder whether we're going to face an across-the-board cut. i can understand that. not only in readiness, which is essential for the survival of our troops, but also in the procurement of substantial expensive, important and necessary technology. and so, senator mccain on the republican side brings to the floor this authorization bill and says we will solve the problem of sequestration by inserting about $38 billion to $40 billion in wartime emergency funding into the department of defense. well we don't believe that's the right way to go. neither does the secretary of defense. neither does the chairman of the joint chief of staffs, because it's a one-year fix. we need a fix that has some

continuity predictability to it. and therein lies the difference in approach between democrats and republicans. is one side patriotic and the other side not patriotic because we disagree on a budget reform? of course not. we happen to believe there's a better way to do this, and so does the president. but there's another element here that i want to make a reference to. the republican majority leader came here and said, well, the democrats are fighting to put more money into the rest of government non-defense -- and it's true, we are. and he used these two examples. they want to hire more people at the internal revenue service and maybe they want to put another coat of paint on their offices. that's what the majority leader said. well, it couldn't be further from the truth. i will argue for adequate funding for the internal revenue service. the overwhelming majority of americans who pay their fair share of taxes and are honest

people and try to follow the law should be respected. and those who don't those who try to cheat our tax system should be held accountable. i don't think that's a radical idea. it takes employees at the internal revenue service to make sure that's true. right now we've cut back on their spending. but let me go to another issue which i think really tells the story about why we think we not only need to make sure the department of defense is adequately funded, but we want to make sure that other areas of government are adequately funded. mr. president, once every 67 seconds in america someone is diagnosed with alzheimer's. once every 67 seconds. it is a disease which is now growing at a rapid pace because of the aging of our population. and it's extraordinarily is -- it's extraordinarily expensive.

$200 billion was spent last year in the care under medicare and medicaid of those with alzheimer's. and that number is projected to grow dramatically in the years to come. well it's a heartbreaking disease. as you see someone that you dearly love, someone in your family really withdrawing from you, and their minds not responsive as they once were. it's extraordinarily devastating to these families, and it's extraordinarily expensive to taxpayers. so what will we do about it? i hope that we will be committed on a bipartisan basis to medical research. medical research through the national institutes of health is part of the non-defense budget that we are trying to help by resolving this whole question of sequestration. it isn't about putting a coat of paint on my office. that isn't why i'm fighting to make sure that the non-defense part of the budget is not victimized by sequestration.

i'm fighting for the national institutes of health. how important is it that they not face sequestration? they've done it. they faced it. let me tell you just one scheme of what it meant -- just one example of what it meant. dr. frank lafurla is at the university of california in irvine. he's a medical researcher. he and his team have created mice that develop alzheimer's disease in the same way humans do. now his research team can study that disease in these mice. but the mice need to age 18 months before research on potential alzheimer's disease treatments can be done. in 2013, when we face sequestration across-the-board cuts in budget, dr. lafurla was faced with the prospect of having to sacrifice these

laboratory animals and close his lab. if that had happened, months of research would have been wasted. that's what happens when you do something as mindless as sequestration in the department of defense and in the national institutes of health. we even have an amendment which i hope will not be offered but l pending has now been filed, i should say, in the senate here which would cut medical research in the department of defense. i wonder what my colleagues are thinking that we in america should cut back on medical research as a way of balancing our budget. i'm praying for the day that dr. furla or someone like him will find a way to delay the onset of alzheimer's and god willing find a cure. if they do, the investment in the national institutes of health will be paid off over and over and over again and human suffering will be avoided. so when i hear the republican

majority leader dismiss the idea of funding outside the department of defense when i hear him suggest that the democrats are trying to work toward a budget solution that is fair to the department of defense and all other agencies so that we -- quote -- "have enough money to paint our offices" -- that's what he said. i'm troubled by that. there's much, much more at stake. when it comes to medical research, i would hope the senator from kentucky feels as all of us do. this is not partisan at all. the victims of alzheimer's are both political parties and people who never vote. they're just across the board. and we ought to be committed to making certain that medical research makes a difference and that we believe in it. i hope that this amendment that's being offered to cut department of defense medical research is not offered. because if it is, i plan to come to the floor here and tell the

story about what that medical research has meant over the last 20 years. for example the second-largest investment in breast cancer research is in the u.s. department of defense and there are dramatic stories to be told about what they have discovered and what they have been able to do in the department of defense. the suggestion that we should eliminate this research, to me, is a very bad one and it doesn't reflect the reality of the fright, concern that come with a diagnosis of breast cancer. i'm prepared for that battle not just on breast cancer but on all the other areas of medical research in the department of defense as well as medical research in the national institutes of health. if there is one issue that should unite us, democrats and republicans, it's medical research. i will tell you the people i represent in illinois,

regardless of party affiliation believe that we in both political parties should be making this commitment. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. i'm sorry. i've been asked by senator leahy to make a unanimous consent request that elizabeth dyzart, an intern in his floor office be granted floor privileges on wednesday, june 10, 2015. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: mr. president, i know we're in morning business. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. coats: i apologize mr. president. i ask that the call of the quorum be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coats: mr. president i know we're in morning business time. if i could speak on the republican time, reserving the time remaining for the democrats, i'd be happy to do that. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. coats: mr. president i rise today the 13th time, for the waste of the week. so far, we have identified waste in many areas ranging from the familiar such as the duplication of government programs to outrageous spending and lack of control to the disney arrest like the government-funded massages for new zealand rabbits. i've gotten more response on that than i have for some of the major items that i have listed. every once in a while we throw in a can you believe they do that. to date, we have estimated here nearly $67 billion of fraud abuse and waste. this is taxpayer dollars. these are taxpayer dollars that are coming in for programs which the congressional budget office,

the general accounting office, other special investigators have looked at and said why are we spending this money in the first place? it's a total waste it's fraud it's been abused. so we're at a level of nearly two-thirds of our goal of $100 billion and moving forward. and so today i would like to talk about yet another fiscal situation that we've come across that is costing the taxpayer hard-earned dollars. they're sending to washington and they want accountability. since we're doing the defense bill here, debate on the defense bill this week, i thought i would look to the defense issue. and they are -- their contracting accountability as an example of yet the need for another effort to save the taxpayers' dollars because it's being wasted. now, it's not uncommon for every agency to -- of the federal government to use contractors.

the department of defense uses contractors. they do necessary work, provide services for our troops overseas. we owe them, we owe them given the sacrifices they are making, to provide those needed services in an effective and efficient way, but we also owe the taxpayer clear oversight in terms of how their money is spent to make sure that these services that are provided, these tasks that are undertaken by defense contractors as well as all federal contractors be done so in an accountable way. the issue today arises out of a report by the special investigator general for afghanistan reconstruction. that report identified a total of $135 million of questionable costs spent by one specific

contractor between october 2001 and march 2014. in most cases the funds that were spent he said, were not supported with adequate documentation or did not have prior approval. in another instance, this same contractor also overcharged the government by over a million dollars, and while those funds were -- while that was discovered and those funds were repaid the government lost about $37,000 in interest payments. that's a little bit of change in a whole total of billions of dollars being spent but nevertheless it's not all that small of an amount to a number of americans who work awfulfully hard to pay their taxes and they want those taxes to be used wisely. again, this same contractor in three other cases violated federal procurement law in

securing contracts totaling almost $5 million. so here we have one contractor, one contractor that has been singled out among many, but put in place $135 million of questionable costs and the american taxpayer has every right to know how and where their tax dollars are spent and particularly those tax dollars that are spent on providing our armed forces and men and women in uniform with the necessary services that they need. this was compounded when in 2012 headlines showed that two former employees of this particular contractor in a video were drunk or under the influence of narcotics during parties that were allegedly thrown -- quote

-- every other day at the contractor's operations center in kabul. and so to compound the problem here not only were the costs in question determined, but also the character of the employees and the behavior of the employees was something that we certainly are not proud of. all of this happened, as the video shows while -- and we learned that weapons were present at the -- and that bonfires were lit and outdoor patio and employees would often throw live ammunition rounds and fire extinguishers into the flames. a strange way of providing entertainment but not when you combine that with alcohol consumption these kind of things can happen, and that's unfortunate. some may say well, okay, that's an aberration, this surely doesn't happen all the time. there is a bad apple here and there is a bunch of good apples

in the barrel. and yes, there are contractors that are providing services to our men and women that are doing it in a responsible and legal way, but the special inspector for afghanistan has also found multiple examples of similar types of waste. in fact, since its creation, the special investigator for -- inspector for afghanistan has undertaken 324 investigations. he's a busy man. and has contracted for over $571 million of misspent taxpayer dollars. and this is just in afghanistan. as you know, we have operations around the world. when we total all this up, who knows what that final number is? i am happy to report that while these numbers are disturbing, there is also progress being made.

the special investigator for afghanistan that i have referred to has made over 200 recommendations for reforms and over 160 of those recommendations have been adopted by the department of defense, trying to help safeguard federal dollars. and so i don't want to leave the impression that something isn't being done about this. nevertheless it is important that we bring these things to light so that we can put procedures in place that will prevent them from happening again. also i'm pleased that title 8 of the bill that we are now debating on this floor the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2016, directly addresses defense acquisition policy and management and would make several reforms to the contracting process so action is being taken. for instance, the bill that calls for the department of defense to establish a preference for fixed price contracts when developing new programs is a needed reform that

is part of this legislation that we are debating now. entering into fixed price contracts helps eliminate the kinds of questionable costs and cost overruns seen in many previous contracts. we need to make sure congress needs to make sure, all of us need to make sure that our service men and women have the support that they need to defend our nation. that's why it's so frustrating when we hear about these instances of contractors that are supposed to be supporting our troops but instead are wasting money whether intentionally or through error or through just simply misbehavior. so what we have done here today is add another $5,771,000,000 to our taxpayer savings gauge. as you can see, we are pushing toward the goal of $100 billion. we hope to go past that. there is no end of issues here that need to be addressed so

that we can tell the american people that we are running an efficient, effective shop up here and we are being careful with our taxpayer dollars. mr. president, i look forward to returning to the floor next week for my next installment of the week and with that, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: mr. president i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coats: mr. president given the fact that no one has come down here, i would like to speak on another matter. i will do so, and then when other members come down to speak, i will try to wrap up and save that time for them. mr. president, just recently last week, i chaired a hearing at the joint economic committee entitled examining the employment effects of the affordable care act. the purpose of the hearing was to discuss how the affordable care act has tipped to affect the ability of americans to earn and do business, and particularly that of small businessmen. the impact of the affordable care act better known as obamacare, is particularly important to discuss at this point this year now that the

delayed employer provisions are in effect and employers are feeling the pinch and frankly pinch is the wrong word, they are feeling the hammer blow of the burdens imposed on them, both regulatory and from a tax standpoint that are directly affecting their ability to grow, provide jobs, expand their business. the congressional budget office estimates that the law obamacare, will reduce the total number of hours worked by as much as 2% from the years 2017-2024. people say 2%. is that a big deal? yes, it is a big deal. it is equal to 2.5 million full-time equivalent jobs for workers who are looking for those jobs. so here we have a piece of legislation that was touted as the best thing since sliced bread or more. it was touted as providing

economic growth, providing millions of jobs to americans and yet the congressional budget office not a tool of the republican party simply an independent, nonpartisan agency that looks over how we spend money here and what the impact of our federal policies and laws is on the economy has said that 2.5 million full-time equivalent workers will lose their jobs because of obamacare. c.b.o. reasoned that this would result from new taxes embedded throughout the obamacare program, not talked about when this was passed. in fact, nothing was talked about when this was passed in terms of the way people can understand it as acknowledged by the former head of the house of representatives, but new taxes

and measures that employers will face and the financial benefits that some will impose or be imposed and receive. c.b.o. estimates a 1% reduction in total pay over the same time frame as a result of obamacare. without credibility and all the promises that have been made, so defiantly made by the president. take my word for it. period he said. not one penny of increase in your premium cost. keep your doctor. if you like your doctor, keep your doctor. if you like your health care plan keep your health care plan. whatever. misrepresentation of the bill this has been. i have received tens of thousands of contacts in my office by e-mail, by regular mail by phone calls by

descriptions of the impact that this law has had and the broken promises that have imposed higher premiums, higher co-pays higher deductibles higher costs to the american people. so we anxiously await the decision of the supreme court which will be coming in several weeks here or less to see where we go next. but i want to take this opportunity to share just one story of one company and the head of that company and what that one small company that is providing needed and good jobs for hoosiers in my state what they've had to endure under this particular law. and i think this expressed so well by the head of that company. his name is dr. joseph sergio, president of the sergio corporation. came before our committee and it was some of the most clear and defined discussion of the impact the personal impact on

families and workers of the obamacare act and what it's done to his small business, i think is representative of millions of small businesses across the country. dr. sergio is the first-generation american citizen whose family business was founded 36 years ago. his father was an italian immigrant who came to america to realize the american dream and he did. dr. sergio expanded his father's business which includes first response. it's a national award-winning disaster restoration company involved in every major hurricane and storm disaster in recent history with awards for their performance and how effectively and efficiently they brought response to people who needed it following these disasters. and polar clean another company he has. a green environmentally friendly dry ice blast cleaning industrial service. we talk about going green.

we talk about caring about our environment. this is a revolutionary way of cleaning any number of factories, businesses energy companies and so forth with a new environmentally-friendly process. here's what dr. sergio said in committee -- and i quote -- "as a small business, we have felt the profound imposition of the affordable care act." or, he said, "as it is known among many small business entrepreneurs, the uneab -- unaffordable care act. as a small business owner, to be successful, i need to be able to accurately identify, forecast and control expenses in order to create profits which would then be reinvested in our growing business. that means new jobs new

opportunity." that, he said, "is where the frustration with obamacare begins." now look, what dr. sergio outlined is economics 101. it's the first thing you learn in an economics class or the first thing your parents tell you. to be successful -- and i wish this applied to the federal government. to be successful, you have to control your costs. you have to identify and forecast what your expenses are going to be in the future and make sure that you can cover those. and only when you make a profit profit -- not only seeking neutrality here in the federal government -- but only when you make a profit in the business can you grow that business and put more people back to work. obamacare, dr. sergio said, imposed a whole set of complications and regulations on small business owners that obscures their ability to do just that, to identify, forecast and control expenses. this makes it difficult he said to determine profits that

are needed to increase employee wages, expand research and development and invest in new equipment. for a company working in disaster response, all of this is important he said. all of this is important for any company. dr. sergio said that his business has been forced to make major changes to meet the requirements imposed by obamacare. they had to drop their health care plan because it didn't meet the requirements of obamacare even though it had been worked out between the employer and the employees, and they were happy with their plan. as a result, his employees, he said and the company are paying more for an inferior policy. employees are now paying large he co-pays and larger deductibles, he said. some are opting to pay the penalty rather than absorb the high cost of obamacare.

this is not only -- this not only illustrates how obamacare affects businesses but how it directly affects families all across our nation. small business owners are angry because obamacare promised to lower costs for the average family by $2,500. that was another broken promise from the white house. he said this will lower your cost by an average of $2,500. rather obamacare now has increased the price of insurance and decreased the quality of affordable insurance. in addition to quality insurance, the mandate has affected his company's growth, said dr. sergio. small business owners have a limited amount of capital to spend on their labor pool and employees. the mandates of obamacare have pushed spending over to the benefits side and this limits the amount of day-to-day compensation increases a company can provide. this is not only demoralizing to

the employees he said, but frustrating to the employer that has seen capital going into an obamacare-compliant benefits plan that is not benefiting their employees as well as it used to. so all the touting of the magnificence of this obamacare helping those have better insurance coverage without increasing their costs is a fraud. it is simply not -- it has simply not turned out to be what it was promised to be. and it doesn't benefit his employees, small business employees as well as the plans they had before, he said. so this is dr. sergio's current dilemma. he has a history of providing a strong benefits package paying up to 50% of employee and dependents insurance and now is unsure how he can keep it under the new law. he testified that surpassing 50 employees would now bring on

more administrative costs and reporting requirements, causing him to purposely stay under the 50-employee threshold and utilize more part-time employees that work less than 30 hours per week. we have heard story after story after story on this floor. i have hundreds if not thousands of messages coming in to my office simply saying, i have no choice other than to put my full-time employees on a part-time basis. and i have no choice of going -- of adding new employees if it takes me over the 50 threshold because it puts me into all these regulations and impositions by obamacare. so it's having a dramatic negative effect on employment, on business growth. and that is where the jobs are. it is not the big companies as much as it is the small companies of america and they're being strangled over these regulations and the taxes imposed and the regulations

telling them that, no, what they have put together that their employees are happy with, that allow the employer to be profitable so that they continue to maintain their benefits and increase their wages simply is out the window under obamacare. can rerepair the -- can we repair the damage of obamacare? dr. sergio closed his remarks with this request -- and i quote -- "please work to undo the vast harms that obamacare has caused and is causing to the middle class, and start over addressing the essential issue of unleashing small businesses to create millions of new jobs which could raise most people from being at risk and into truly affordable plans." as a small business entrepreneur and job creator i urge you dr. sergio said, to repeal obamacare

and allow for marked innovation within the health industry, and allow for pooling across state lines and allow small business freedom from oppressive requirements, new taxes and fees and increased uncertainty. i was moved by his testimony and that's why i'm standing here today, so we can put it in the record. i was moved by his experience of how obamacare has impacted his business decisions in a negative way, how it has hurt his employees, the families of his employees, how it has restricted him from expanding his business, how it has cost him from going from a profitable business to which he could do more research, do innovation, pay more, provide more benefits to his employees to a situation where he now has to reduce those benefits, where he has to sit down with his employees and say i'm sorry

under the requirements of this new act, this is where we are as a company. we can't keep -- continue to give you the benefits you once had. we can't raise your wages because we're not making profits. and it's either go out of business or it is try to struggle along under this new law which is why he believes we ought to change it. and i certainly agree with that. and i think this is backed by tens of millions of businesses all across america. we can all agree with the goal of ensuring access to quality care when it's needed. i don't think anyone on this floor has disputed that fact. unfortunately, a one-size-fits one-size-fits-all, government-run health care system is not the answer. we're looking for the best, workable real-world solution for americans and their health care and we have not hit that mark. this congress has failed, and this administration has failed to hit that mark. we should pursue initiatives that truly make health care an

option for all. such initiatives should drive down costs by increasing competition and transparency, reforming medical malpractice promoting pooling options for small businesses and giving states flairt flexibility in -- greater flexibility in how they deliver their services. dr. sergio should have better certainty for his businesses, and all small business people should have better certainty for their future. his employees should have a better health care system, as do all americans. these are the goals that we need to reach. we should strive for a system that puts individuals squarely in charge of their health care and doesn't discourage americans from working and improving their earnings. that is the american dream dr. sergio's father sought to achieve when he started his business 30 years -- 36 years ago. that is the dream we should pursue. and yet, we are hampered in

doing that by the onerous regulations, taxes stipulations imposed by the health care law passed by one party without any input from the opposing party famously labeled as something that we will need to learn about after it is passed. probably the most telling statement by a member of congress in this case the former majority leader and then speaker of the house of representatives. something shoved down americans' throat without any bipartisan support whatsoever. now, yes if it had been read before it was passed, we could have avoided all this. then debate it, and people had looked to find a bipartisan way of moving forward to provide health care for uninsured and to

ensure that what the health care plan that they imposed would not have these negative effects. that is what should have happened. it didn't. we have a chance to rectify that. we have a chance to remedy that. we're waiting for a supreme court decision before we go forward with an alternative to what has cost us, in terms of jobs and cost small businesses in terms of their ability to grow. that is part of the american dream. we have denied that under this health care program and i'm hoping my colleagues can join us as we look to address this very important issue important for not only the health of the american public; important for the growth of our economy. mr. president, with that, i do note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: will the senator withhold his suggestion? mr. coats: the senator would be happy to do just that.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. gardner: thank you mr. president. i come to the floor to talk about an amendment i offered to the national defense authorization act amendment 1708. this amendment would require the president to submit a comprehensive strategy within 120 days to promote united states interest in the asia-pacific region. similar language was already placed in the house version of the fiscal year 2016 national defense authorization act. the amendment would ensure that the u.s. government is effectively marshaling resources and employing a whole of government approach to implement an effective multifaceted engagement policy in the endo-asia pacific region. this region is vital to the united states national interests. for generations to come and the administration asia pivot or rebalance policy was intended to reflect that. again, this is something the administration has talked about for years this asia rebalance

or asia pivot. but currently the administration does not seem to have such a comprehensive strategy or approach that seemlessly incorporates u.s. military, diplomatic and commercial activities to make the rebalance an effective policy. in april of 2014, the senate foreign relations committee released a report stating that u.s. government agencies have not substantially prioritized their resources to increase engagement in the asia-pacific region. in fact, if you look at u.s. foreign military assistance, i believe it ranks somewhere around 4% of spending, and if you look at the bureaus this region that we are addressing through hopefully the asia pivot and the rebalance receives about 1% or so, depending on how you measure it, of funding. in fact, it's the last amongst bureau funding. last month at the shangri-la dialogue in signing for secretary of defense ashton carter announced a new initiative that envisions a boost in u.s. military assistance over the next five

years to enhance maritime security efforts with indonesia malaysia, the philippines vietnam and thailand. this effort is a welcome step forward but alone is not enough. these initiatives cannot take place in a vacuum. department of defense efforts need to be more effectively wedded to other efforts by the united states and government agencies into a coherent and comprehensive strategy of assistance and engagement in the region. in light of shared threats in the region, this lack of a comprehensive policy sends the wrong message to our allies throughout the region. the amendment will ensure that congress is a genuine partner to the administration's effort to implement this important effort. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment. one of the challenges that we have -- we have seen going forward of course in the asia pacific region is as we talk about asia balances, we talk about a pivot. our day-to-day attention seems to be more and more drawn to the middle east, and rightly so, but

our long-term interests lie in asia in these regions that we're trying to negotiate a trans-pacific partnership agreement with. hopefully the house will pass trade promotion authority later this week and we can begin to work in earnest on ideas that represent our commitment through the asia pivot or asia rebalance. i'm concerned that we have talked a lot of good talk and put together some fancy rhetoric and put a good label on our foreign policy efforts as it relates to the asia-pacific, but what we haven't done is actually followed through and while i commend secretary carter for his efforts and commitment, that we can't just stop there. we must make sure that we are doing everything we can to grow our opportunity in this region through an asia pivot that -- or asia rebalance that truly does need re-energized. one of the best ways to help rising china truly become a great nation is to make sure that it is abiding by the norms

and standards of acceptable international behavior. we have talked before about the challenges we have from violations of intellectual property rights, cyber theft. in fact, five officers have been indicted. president obama has put forward an executive orderliesing sanctions, possible sanctions on cyber threats. we know that if we can start avoiding these kinds of bad behaviors when we start engaging asia and our neighbors and friends throughout the region, the regions that we will be dealing with through the trans-pacific partnership. and so it is my hope that we can really truly bring this amendment through the national defense authorization act to bring coheroincy and -- coherency and clarity to the rebounding strategy that we have talked about but so far not been the best in our execution. mr. president, i would like to talk a little bit about what is happening in colorado's western slope this morning.

several weeks ago a judge in denver colorado, ruled that a permit was improperly given to a mine known as the kallowaio mine on the western slope. this is in northwestern colorado. this lawsuit was brought some eight years after this permit was granted. mine employees -- the mine employs around 220 people on colorado's western slope. it's critical to the economy's -- to the region's economy. it's critical to the economy of craig, colorado. without these employees without this mine, it will truly be an economically devastateing moment in western slope history. and so i hope that the department of interior will pay attention to the multiple letters they have received from senator bennet, from our colleague senator bennet, from governor hickenlooper in colorado who have all urged this to be taken seriously, to be

reconsidered and appealed. it would be economically devastating for these communities to lose 220 jobs, and i certainly hope that the administration is paying the serious attention to this matter that it deserves. mr. president, i thank you and i yield back my time. i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mccain: i ask further proceedings under the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: we begin today and hopefully we'll with the agreement of my friend from rhode island, we will have some amendments voice votes and recorded votes today. my colleagues can look forward to it and also those that wish to come to the floor and propose amendments, we are still looking at hopefully agreement that the amendments would be closed out by this evening. so mr. president just say a few words here about apparently president obama has now going to send hundreds of more troops to iraq, the president plans to deploy hundreds, according to media reports hundreds of

troops to anbar province. "politico" has learned the step-up training will be charged with retaking the city of rammedy and other ground lost to isil. however american troops will not go into combat with iraqi troops directly or to call for airstrikes. and defense officials continue to worry about iraqis' end of the bargain whether baghdad can send enough troops to take advantage of an american program. one training program hasn't had any iraqi recruits to train for months. mr. president, we're going to send some more -- 400 more people maybe to staff up their headquarters. i don't know. but when we have a situation where 75% of the airstrikes -- of the air combat missions over iraq and syria return, 75% of them return without dropping a

weapon, it is so reminiscent of another war another time many years ago where under then- secretary of defense mcnamara this same kind of strategy prevailed. i would remind my colleagues of the various statements that have been made by president obama and others january 27, 2014, obama likens isis to j.v. team. in august 7, 2014, mr. obama said the united states had no intention of being the iraqi air force and then september 10, 2014 president obama authorized a major expansion of the campaign against the islamic state, saying the united states was recruiting a global coalition to degrade and

ultimately destroy the militants. unfortunately, there is still as the president said, i believe the day before yesterday we do not yet have a complete strategy for fighting the islamic state. thousands of new fighters were replenishing the ranks of the militant group faster than the coalition could remove them from the fight. in other words, we're losing. mr. president, i would remind my colleagues the news items today, "the wall street journal," u.s. strategy in lebanon stirs fears critics say washington's funding cut for program in lebanon to develop alternative shiite voices to hezbollah is an effort to appease iran. china military says conducted drills near taiwan and the

philippines, chinese war ships and aircraft on wednesday passed through the bashi channel between taiwan and the philippines to hold routine operations in the western pacific. the hill, u.s. training base in iraq hasn't seen a new recruit in weeks. the u.s. mission in iraq is stalled at one of the five coalition training sites because the central government has not been sending new recruits, according to defense officials. there's an interesting one in "the wall street journal," iraqi city of mosul transformed a year after islamic state capture. i remind my colleagues that many statements made by american officials as well as iraqis that they were going to retake the city of mosul very quickly an islamic state stronghold of mosul an extremist group to working to repair roads and refurbish hotels. iraq's second largest city never looked so good thanks to strict

laws enforced by the sunni militants. beneath that veneer they mete out deadly punishments for those who don't comply with a long list of prohibitions imbolted since it took control on in june 2014, according to interviews with more than a dozen current and former city officials. so mosul is still almost fully inhabited a contrast of cities where iraqi and coalition forces have pushed islamic state out. doctors, judges and professors who defied or questioned islamic state laws have been executed, sometimes by public stoning or crucifixion. prison are filled with people awaiting sentences from the islamic court. nearly no one gets out alive one of the residents said, then came the attacks on minorities.

there are many things we do do not control islamic at all like the way christians were treated said a female doctor from mosul who is pious and veiled. all of mosul does not accept what happened to the christians says a woman who lives in curr cute. the attack on minorities was a mistake that cost them our support. suicide bomber attacks tourist site in luxor, four discretions wounded. china military constructs -- conducts drilled near taiwan and the philippines. al qaeda attack isis after leader is killed. china exports repression beyond its borders. foreign policy, airstrikes killing thousands of islamic state fighters but it just recruits more.

not all -- the strength of isis continues to grow so they're getting more in from recruits than they are losing their casualties said rick brennan a former u.s. army infantry officer, who was a civilian advisor in iraq. brennan now senior political scientist at the rand corporation said he was basing his opinion on intelligence estimates made public. so the bragging about killing 10,000 isis, they forgot to mention that there are more coming in than they are killing. also again reminiscent of the days itself vietnam war where body counts seemed to be the criteria. islamic state keeps firm grip one year after mosul's fall. weak iraqi forces no closer to regaining -- to reclaiming

strategic city. "new york times," isis stage attacks in iraq and libya despite u.s. airstrikes. islamic state militants staged attacks near baghdad and the libyan city of sirt, persistent strength on both fronts despite an american-led air campaign against it in syria and iraq. "wall street journal," u.s. plans to send hundreds more trainers to iraq as i talked about. associated press state department spokesman saving iraq could take three to five years. naturally there's no mention of syria. and, by the way they said that they were developing not complete strategy, i'd like to know the kin complete part of it. i'd like to know what strategy there is. of any kind. "wall street journal," iraq city of mosul transformed a year

after islamic state's capture. and i mentioned before isis stage attacks in iraq and libya despite u.s. airstrikes. and it goes on and on. meanwhile, the president of the united states will according to media reports announce today we will send 400 or so more to iraq, none of which is accompanied by a strategy, none of which is accompanied by forward air controllers so we will continue to see 75% of the combat missions flown return to base without having discharged their weapons since we have no one on the ground to identify targets. this is incrementalism at its best or worst depending on how you describe it. today i hope we will be able to

take some additional amendments. we have a managers' package getting prepared and i believe that senator reed and i are moving forward with some amendments that we can have debated and also voted on today. so, mr. president, i --,. 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 appropriations for 2016 for military activities. mr. mccain: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. mikulski: mr. president i wish to speak on the bill and to describe -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. ms. mikulski: i ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be vacated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mikulski: mr. president i was originally going to offer an amendment, but at the suggestion of both the chairman and ranking member of the committee, there were some technical details that they wanted to review. so i'm going to speak on an amendment that i will, in all probability, offer at a later time but speak on it now and it really goss how-- --and it really goes to -- to make sure we go to the good

order and really hispanic our troops with the -- really help our troops with the many stresses that are in their lives. what my goal is to add money to funding our commissaries. this amendment which i will introduce at a later time, restores $322 million in cuts to commissaries proposed by the department of defense. it would authorize $1.4 billion funding, the same level that is in the house national defense authorization act and in the house defense appropriation bill. it offsets the $32 million for commissaries by reducing the pentagon's budget in failed policies to buy spare parts. they've got a lot of waste there, and we think we can find the $322 million. that's the technical thing we need to work out the offset. but what is not technical is the

fact that we have to make sure that our commissaries function at the level that they currently are. commissaries represent one of the most significant and lasting benefits for military members and their families. mr. president, did you know that commissaries have been on the one hand since 1826, that they've been automobile to shop at network -- they've been able to shop at network stores? the commissary system is simple. if you're an active duty, reserve, or national guard who are a member of the family, you have access to 246 of them worldwide. they're tuckly particularly important to many of our troops overseas, and it gives military families affordability and accessibility to healthy foods. the benefits to the commissaries are significant. they feed those people who are actually members of our military. it helps military families stretch their budgets and it

also helps provide jobs to family members in the military who work in these commissaries. now, our distinguished colleagues of the authorizing committee, senators mccain and senators jack reed, themselves military men themselves -- senator mccain a graduate of the naval academy senator jack reed of west point -- know that one -- the big expenditures right now for our military is the rising health costs. the military itself is looking how do we make sure we keep our troops healthy while they're doing their job and healthy so that when they move on, that they will be in excellent shape? the commissaries do these kinds of things. they provide what grocery stores

do in fresh fruits and vegetables. they provide healthy foods. but also, like in my own commissary at fort meade that's part of a healthy base initiative, is actually showing people how to stretch their dollar more to get more for the family budget and actually recommendations on how to add nutrition. save money add nutrition. if you want to bend the health care cost curve while we're looking at important medical research research shows good food leads to good health. the other thing is this: military members get a significant saving from commissaries. theage of savingthe average saving is about 30% on a bill. that comes out for a foam family of four over $4,000 a year. and for our men and women in the enlisted service -- at the enlisted service level, this is really big deal. and we need to make this

available. now, what many people don't realize is that the commissaries not only create jobs, but 60% of commissary workers are spouses of men who serve in the military. about 100,000 jobs are supported through commissaries. the other thing that this bill -- the d.o.d. wants to do is cut their hours. well if they cut their hours that does cut jobs, but it also cuts opportunity. you know, when you're in the military you work around the clock. you're not on the clock; you work around the clock. so if you are a military police officer, you could be getting off of duty late at night. if you are someone who repairs our helicopters or our airplanes, you're getting off at night. the commissary at fort meade serves agencies like the national security agency.

they essentially work a 36-hour day. they work around the clock 24 hours a day. ourday our commissary isn't open 24 hours a day. the department of defense wants to make the consequently the commissaries more self-sustaining. you could always find efficiencies. but don't cut it $32 million and further cut it close to $1 billion over the next four years. what we want to do is make sure that our military families have what they need. first of all, we want them to have good food. we want them to be able to go to these commissaries at hours that work for military families. and we also want to look at the long-range effects of cutting -- of bending the health care, of

bending the health care curve. mr. president, i'm going to come back to this fort meade commissary. i'm really proud of the fact that fort meade is what we call a compassionate post. that means if you're in the united states army and you have a special-needs child one of the highly diecial places to be based is at -- a highly desirable places to be based is at fort meade. anne arundel county has one of the best programs. you also have access to kennedy krieger, one of the internationally iconic agencies that meet the needs of children not only with special needs but multiple special needs. so we're really happy in maryland for fort meade to be a compassion at thatcompassionate post.

think of a child that has cerebral pall circumstance a child that might have multiple complications, that might own require the child to be on a continual respirator. all of these things go on with the stresses of being also a military family. certainly we can keep the commissaries open so that they can get the food that they need for their family and hours that then work for them. this is what the real life of the military is. and i remember after desert storm where the appropriations committee met under the leadership of senators byrd and senator ted stevens asking general schwarzkopf what did he need in an after-action report. said, we need better intelligence and we worked really hard to up-grade where we are. and he said, we also need better food. we need better food. we need better food for our troops and people need to believe that their families are

being taken care of while they're in harm's way. so we ask a lot of our military, and our military families are now asking us, don't cut the commissaries keep them open, keep them affordable, keep them available. so mr. president once we clarify the technicals of an offset, which is required, i will come back to you and offer this amendment which i hope will pass the senate 100-0. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president i'd ask ike that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: i have 13 unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have been proved by both the majority and the minority. i ask unanimous consent these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. cornyn: mr. president turning to the underlying legislation that we're debating the defense authorization bill, i can't think of anything more basic or fundamental to the federal government's responsibility than national security and defense. and to make sure that we provide our men and women in uniform with the resources they need in order to do the job they volunteered to do on our behalf. and, of course, many of us have commented time and time again on this floor and elsewhere about the increasing complexity of the threats facing our national security and the security and peace in the world. but this legislation enables our troops to get the funding and the resources and the authorities they need in order to have success on the battlefield. as we consider the current state of the world it's clear why this bill is vital.

we live a world marked by constant dynamic threats to our way of life. for example parts of the middle east and north africa have been overrun by the islamic state and the region continues to be a hotbed of failed states and ungoverned places. if we've learned anything from 9/11 mr. president, it was that ungoverned spaces are a threat to our national security because that's where our adversaries will organize and train and then export those threats to our homeland. despite the ongoing negotiations with iran, iran remains the enemy of the united states. and continues its campaign to achieve regional domination and become a threshold nuclear state, threatening our most trusted allies and partners in the region. in europe, and asia, russia and china continue to threaten our allies in their respective neighbors, using a growing

array of soft power and hard power tactics twist arms and to coerce our friends and allies. these new dynamic threats include cyber attacks which have much been in the news today including espionage and just outright theft of our intellectual property and seed corn created from the brains and ingenuity of american entrepreneurs and creators. today our courageous men and women in uniform are tasked with the challenge of facing these many threats and many others in regions all around the world. so it is astounding to me that the democratic leader would then decide in the face of these threats, in the face of our grave responsibilities to meet these challenges, that he would come to the floor and suggest that debating this bill would be what he called a waste of time. and go further to say that the

democratic minority would consider filibustering this legislation, just unbelievable. this blatant disregard for our responsibilities and for our troops is very troubling particularly because this bill has historically been one that's enjoyed broad bipartisan support. in fact, as our colleague the senior senator from arizona pointed out in an op-ed that he wrote yesterday congress has passed a defense authorization bill for 53 consecutive years. 53 consecutive years. because it is a national priority. it should be, and it is. and up to now this bill has been -- has been marked by strong bipartisan backing. in the committee the bill sailed through the senate armed services committee with a bipartisan vote of 22-4. you don't get much more bipartisan in today's senate than that.

and yet with all of the support from both sides of the aisle, and even with such a clearly demonstrated need as the funding and well-being of our troops and their families, the president himself the commander in chief has threatened to veto this bill, a bill that actually provides the full funding levels that he himself has requested. it is important to note, because some of our colleagues on the other side have said, well the problem with this bill is it doesn't spend enough money or we ought to reallocate our nondefense discretionary spending to increase that as well but it's important to note this bill includes the exact same level of funding that president obama himself requested in his budget. so why in the world would the president threaten to veto a bill that meets the funding levels that he himself identified in his budget? well for some reason instead of

focusing on our most fundamental responsibilities of funding the brave men and women in our armed services and making sure they had the resources to keep our country safe our commander in chief and the minority leader are threatening to hold this bill hostage to extract more government spending for nondefense discretionary spending for organizations and agencies like the internal revenue service. so why in the world would you hold national security spending hostage so you can spend more money on the i.r.s.? just a complete upside down view of our priorities. so the president's lack of strategic depth or his understanding of our nation's most fundamental duties is really astounding. but i'm troubled to say this, mr. president, but i think it's actually true, i think the

president understands our nation 's fundamental duties very clearly. the problem is this threat to hold this bill hostage is just cynical, it's just uses a political tool to try to gain advantage when it comes to raising the caps on nondefense discretionary spending. and for a president who admits he doesn't have a complete strategy to defeat the islamic state, i find his comments to be irresponsible. that he's threatening to veto this bill to satisfy the far left wing of his party that doesn't believe government can ever spend too much money that government is ever big enough. government is never big enough or spends enough for some of our colleagues across the aisle and some of the political base in the president's party. and just this morning "the washington post" reported that senate democrats have now come up with a brand-new political strategy. and this time they're going

further to threaten to block all funding bills for the rest of the summer, including the defense appropriation bill which i know the majority leader is scheduling to be debated and voted on right after we complete our work on this legislation. as a matter of fact, the democratic leader said this morning we're headed for another shutdown senator reid said. they did it once and they're going to do it again. they want to wait until the fiscal year ends and then close up government. mr. president, i would pause for a minute because i see the distinguished chairman of the armed services committee here and i would yield to him for any comments he'd make briefly. mr. mccain: i ask that my remarks be included at the end of the remarks by the senator from texas rather than interrupting his statement. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: mr. president i modify my amendment number 1569 by accepting the second-degree

amendment number 1921 offered by the senator from north carolina. the presiding officer: the senator has that right. the amendment is so modified. amendment 1921 is rendered moot. mr. cornyn: mr. president? a senator: mr. president? mr. cornyn: mr. president regular order. the presiding officer: the senator from texas has the floor. mr. cornyn: it's bad enough to democrats are threatening to filibuster the defense funding bill but now they're claiming it's really the republicans' fault. in other words we're not for stopping the defense authorization bill, we are for funding our national responsibilities when it comes to national security, but because our democratic friends want to hold the defense authorization bill and the defense procedural hostage -- appropriation bill hostage they are claiming we are responsible because we won't accede to their demand their insatiable demand

for bigger government and more government spending. and we won't allow them to hold our troops and their families and our national security hostage. so we're the ones at fault. but today as we know, thanks to "the washington post," this filibustering of this and other bills is just part of a political strategy. i mean one thing that i have to acknowledge, is the candor of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. if you want to know what they're planning to do, all you have to do is read the newspaper because they're more than happy to tell us exactly what they're going to do and what their plans are. but this is all part of a cynical political strategy to keep the senate from working and to deny funding to our armed services while bulking up federal agencies like the environmental protection agency and the i.r.s. this is shameless and it's hypocritical and the american people will not be fooled by it.

i'd like to remind our colleagues across the aisle that stifling debate and blocking votes is a pretty lousy political strategy as well. it's what lost them control of this chamber last november. it's a losing strategy, it's bad policy, and it's cynical politics. and the american people understand it. and it's simply shameful that they're trying to use our troops who protect this great nation as some sort of leverage in some sort of political game. i don't have to remind the presiding officer who serves -- continues to serve honorably in our military services that we live in a dangerous dangerous world, somehow we don't pay enough attention to that until something reaches out and bites us or injures someone we love. but our armed services face new and growing threats on a daily

basis. our troops deserve our full attention and every resource they need to serve and defend our country around the world. that's why i've come to the floor to say why in the world after 53 con he second tiff authorization bills would the democratic leader with the complicity of the president of the united states himself say they're going to hold this defense bill hostage until they get what they want when it comes to spending more money? this bipartisan bill which focuses squarely on the needs of our war fighters and authorizes funding at the same level that the president himself suggested, should not be held hostage to political gamesmanship. so i would encourage the more sensible members of our friends across the aisle to focus on the troops and their families, not the partisan agenda of their leadership. and pass this legislation and provide the funding that our

troops need to continue to do their courageous work of keeping our country safe. one way my colleagues could play a constructive role and move this legislation forward instead of threatening to filibuster it is to work with us on commonsense amendments like the one i filed on the underlying bill. under current law the president has discretion to allow energy exports to vulnerable allies and our partners in europe and around the world when it's deemed to be in our national interest. the legislation that i've offered, sum plea reaffirms this existing authority of the president of the united states but encourages the president to not allow our adversaries, like vladimir putin to use energy supply for vulnerable countries in europe as a weapon. it would also commission a report that would allow us to get an accurate assessment of

just how dependent our allies in the region are on those who would wield their energy supplies like a weapon. this amendment is a modest, commonsense measure that serves as a first step towards towards towards addressing the requests, pleas in some cases. it doesn't change the existing authority that the president already has. so i would urge our colleagues to put down the political playbook and to work with us in a constructive way on the underlying legislation. this has been the great tradition of the defense authorization bill and one that's being threatened by the political gamesmanship that we see threatened by the democratic leader and indeed even with the complicity and fingerprints of the president of the united states. we owe it to you are troops and soap more -- we owe it to our troops and so much more who are relying on us to act today. and even more than that, we have a duty to the country to make

sure we maintain the security of the american people. mr. president, i would yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: what is the parliamentary situation at this time? the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call at the time. the presiding officer: thank you. i would ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. feinstein: last week we learned about cyber penetration penetrations. this time government personnel records held by the office of personnel management. in its annual world i'd threat assessment the intelligence community this year ranked cyber intrusions and attacks as the number-one threat to our nation's security. cyber attacks and threats are also a major drag on our economy, with the theft of billions and billions of dollars of intellectual property and actual money from our nation's businesses. quite simply, cyber attacks are a major and growing threat to

every aspect of our life. and it is with that background that senator burr and i began working early this year on a new cybersecurity information-sharing bill. it is a first-step bill in that, for sharing company to company or shaker cyber threat information directly with the government a company would receive liability protection and, therefore feel free to have this kind of constructive interchange. the senate select intelligence committee produced a bill in the last congress, but it didn't receive a vote. chairman burr and i have been determined not only to get a vote but to get a bill signed into law. and it should be evident to everybody that the only way we'll get this done is if it's bipartisan. with significant compromises on both sides we put together the

cybersecurity information-sharing act a bill improved in march by our intelligence committee by on overwhelming 14-1 vote. that bill has been ready for senate consideration for nearly three months but has not yet been brought to the floor. last week's attack underscores why such legislation is necessary. the democratic leader told me many weeks ago that this issue is too important for political wrangling, that he would not seek to block or slow down consideration of the bill and would work to move the bill quickly. so the bill is ready for floor consideration. now, a number of my colleagues would like to propose amendments as is their right and i expect i would support some of them and would oppose some of them. but the senate should have an opportunity to fully consider

the bill, to receive the input of other committees with jurisdiction in this area. now, unless we do this, we won't have a bipartisan vote, i believe, because like it or not, no matter how simple -- and i've been through two bills now. this is not an easy bill to draft because there are conflicts on both sides. filing the cybersecurity bill as an amendment to the defense authorization bill prompted a lot of legitimate and understandable concern from both sides of the aisle. people want a debate on the legislation, and they want an opportunity to offer relevant amendments. and to do this as an amendment -- and when senator burr discussed it with me, i indicated i did not want to go on and make that proposal, and i think it's a mistake. i very much hope that the

majority leader will reconsider this path and that once we have finished with the defense authorization bill, the senate can take up, consider, and hopefully approve the cybersecurity legislation. i think to do it any other way we're in real trouble and this is the product of experience. and so i very much hope that there can be a change in procedure and that this bill -- i know our leader will agree -- could come up directly following the defense bill. thank the chair. i yield the floor. mr. president, i suggest the

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

mr. cotton: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. cotton: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. cotton: mr. president i come to the floor today -- the presiding officer: is there objection? objection is heard. calling off the quorum -- or, is-- --objection is heard to calling off the quorum. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. cotton: i ask unanimous consent that the quorm call be lifted. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection so ordered. mr. cotton: mr. president i speak today about cotton amendment 1605 addressing funding for the national nuclear security administration. the administration helps safeguard our nuclear stockpile in this country. the obama administration in its budget earlier this year requested approximately $50 million per year for the next five years for the administration to be able to dismantle old or obsolete warheads. my amendment would simply codify president obama's own budget request, limiting -- limiting -- the administration to spend $50 million per year for the next five years on nuclear dismantlement. my amendment also includes a

waiver that would allow the president to increase the amount of spending under certain limited conditions. this amendment has been approved not only by the majority but also the minority of the armed services committee. i offer this amendment because of troubling statements from the obama administration about their intent to accelerate nuclear disarmament, however. last month secretary of state kerry announced that the nuclear nonproliferation review conference that the united states would accelerate its dismantlement of nuclear warheads by 20%. beyond sob leet or outdated warhead, i don't believe nuclear dismantlement is a priority. we should not be accelerating our nuclear disarmament by up to 20% because it with a send a wrong message to russia and other add adversaries. russia is making threats to the united states and our allies and

we're going to elevate our unilateral nuclear disarmament? that defies logic. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment in order to call up cotton amendment 1605. the presiding presiding officer the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: thank you very much madam chairman. i'm very concerned about this. it unnecessarily limits the national nuclear security administration's ability to dismantle the retired nuclear weapons that no longer have any role in our national defense. the president's budget proposed $48 million for dismantlement and this amendment would freeze funding at that level and its specific funding levels for the next five years. however, the appropriations committee just last month provided an additional $4 million for dismantlement in

the energy and water bill, and i'm ranking on that bill. it was approved on a bipartisan basis, 26-4. this funding is appropriate and it is justified. the fact is there are currently approximately 2,400 retired warheads awaiting dismantlement. the rate at which we dismantle these warheads does not have anything to do with the 4,800 warheads that remain in the stockpile consistent with the new start treaty -- this is a treaty, it's not an agreement. the administration has committed to accelerating dismantlement and we should support its goals of eliminating redundant nuclear weapons. i see no reason to imply congressional disapproval for this effort, and micromanage nnsa's weapons activities. modernization and dismantlement

go hand in hand. nnsa routinely shifts employees from weapons stockpiles stewardship and modernization work to dismantlement to keep the work force fully and usefully engaged. it is completely unnecessary to complicate this process and i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. cotton: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. cotton: i understand the senator from california objects to my amendment but this is the senate this is an important issue, we should be debating the matter. the senator from california wishes to defeat my amendment we should call it up and make it pentagon pending and have a vote on it. not object to it being brought to the floor to be debated. is there a strong reason to issue our nuclear policy? i would say yes. the administration has been less

than forthcoming in dealing with congress particularly on nuclear policy. as we know the administration minimized reports of russia's activities under the interimmediate at-nuclear forces treaty at the time they were trying to pass the new start treaty in 2010. further i would say this amendment simply codifies the president's own good. the senator from california said 48 millions. for the next four years it's 52.4 million and 58.1 million. i will concede in sum that is $50,100. i'm giving the administration a haircut of $100,000 were year. i'd be happy to put it at $550,100,000 per year but this congress should not give a blank check to engage in disarm

edmonton at the time when vladimir putin is threatening the united states and his missiles are shooting civilian aircraft out of the sky in the heart of europe. madam president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. sessions: madam president i -- i rise today to speak on my amendment number 1706. that amendment addresses the contributions of the member states to the north atlantic treaty organization in relation to their commitments and their defense budgets and their economy. at the 2006 nato summit in riga latvia which i was honored to be able to attend, nato countries committed to

spend a minimum of 2% of their national income or g.d.p. on defense. furthermore, at the 2014 nato summit in wales nato member countries agreed again -- quote -- "allies currently meeting the nato guidelines to spend a minimum of 2% of their are gross domestic product on defense will aim to continue to do so" -- close quote. and they went on to state -- quote -- "allies whose current proportion of g.d.p. spent on defense is below this level will halt any decline in defense expenditure aimed to increase the defense expenditure in real terms as g.d.p. grows aim to move upwards to the 2% guideline within a decade, with a view to meeting their nato capability targets and filling nato's capability shortfalls" -- close

quote. well, i would suggest that's a pretty weak commitment, but it remains a commitment. certainly can be stretched out and they are already failing to meet those commitments. so in 2015, only four -- this year only four out of the 28 nato member countries including the united states, meet the 2% target. that's four out of the 28. regrettably european nato allies averaged just 1.33% of their g.d.p. on defense even though nato countries have made numerous nonfinding unfulfilled commitments to send 2%. the united states currently spends 8.3% of its g.d.p. on defense, a large portion of it defending europe. so in contrast data shows that european nato allies average 24%

of year g.d.p. on social welfare programs contrasting to 19% of the united states. so they spend more in-country on their programs while we are spending more to defend them. unfortunately, reductions in military spending are a common theme across europe. just five years ago ring according to the nato figures france's military budget amounted to 2.4% of g.d.p. this past year, it stood at 1.9%. and france's budget law orders no increases before 2019. as for germany europe's economic powerhouse, it spends only 1.3% of its g.d.p. on defense. and, but the way the european economy, as a whole is as large or slightly larger than the united states' economy as a

whole. so in the 1990's, nato's european states spent about 2.3% of g.d.p. on defense well above today's average of 1. 3%. america's share of nato's military expenditures, get this, colleagues is 75%. the united states' share of the nato military expenditures is 75%, and it's grown an additional 5% since 2007. this is a rather dramatic figure and i had the privilege to be automobile to travel to eastern europe recently, and it was raised to us by individuals in those countries. they were somewhat embarrassed about this. but the reality is, they're taking no substantial steps to deal with it. former secretary of defense

robert gates is one of the most wise people in the world, i believe, in terms of united states policy and international policy served in multiple administrations over years in the white house and as secretary of defense under president obama and president bush. in his last speech as secretary of defense he had the following to say on this matter: "if current trends in the decline of european defense capabilities are not halted and reversed future u.s. political leaders, those for whom the cold war was not the formative experience that it was for me, may not consider the return on america's investment in nato worth the cost. what i've sketched out is the real possibility for a dim if not dis dismal, future for the

trans-atlantic future. such a future is possible, but it is not inevitable. the good news is that the members of nato, individually and collectively, have it well within their means to halt and reverse these trends and instead produce a different future." close quote. this was his last speech. he made a speech on a subject he considered to be extraordinarily important. it's a statement that he's made previously at other times but it reflected i think something akin to washington's farewell address, as he raised and discussed one of the most important problems facing the world today and that is that the developed world other than the united states, is not conducting itself financially in an effect tough way effective way to defend themselves. former secretary of state henry

kissinger decades one of the wisest world leaders and commentators, has repeatedly questioned europe's will -- and it gets down to that level. to what extent is europe willing to pay a modest price to maintain their security? there is a book out a number of years ago referred to as "paradise and power." and kagan's book notes that the europeans are living in the paradise of american power protected by american power. so when the russians took this aggressive step to invade ukraine a nation that we've considered for admission into nato took the crimea and

otherwise acted in violation of international law we announced a european reassurance initiative $1 billion. and this $1 billion was to be utilizinged in a way that would re--- utilized in a way that would re-assure our allies and reaffirm our commitment to europe even though, in the face of this dangerous and provocative action by russia. well colleagues, after having been back to europe and eastern europe on a number of occasions i would say i'm getting to the point where i want to be reassured. i want to have confidence in europe's commitment. all this time, this volatile time in world history this lack of commitment on the part of our european allies, it must end. we need to ensure that nato

members are spending at least what is needed and certainly the minimum 2% of g.d.p. they repeatedly committed to spend. the dangers in this world are much closer to europe than they are to the united states, and our european allies are right to be concerned. they are anxious to have our presence. the requests for more and numerous military support actions from the united states are urgent even in some of those countries. they want us there but great danger arises from europe living in an unreal comfort zone, living in the paradise of american power. unless the history of the world has dramatically been altered -- and it has not -- threats to europe will remain. who will resist the dangerous pressures on europe? will our european partners just rest on american power? that's what the reality suggests

is in fact occurring now. europeans now insist greece must take painful financial steps for the good of the european union to be a good team player, they say. i think it's right and appropriate for the united states to call on our nato allies to do their part to this great alliance that has done so much for stability prosperity, and peace for europe and the entire world. this resolution before the senate has overwhelming support i believe. i think it'll be accepted as part of the managers' package. the call it makes on nato members is the absolute minimum i think that can be expected of them. let's consider the plain facts. the deployment of united states military forces to any nation in the world for the purpose of defending that nation and a region is an august thing.

obviously, the military might of the united states is unsurpassed. the united states cannot and must not take these commitments lightly. the ramifications of our commitment to the defense of a foreign nation are significant grave indeed. this nation has every right and a duty to our citizens to ensure that those with whom we partner do their share. the idea that a small nation can simply send an e-mail to the united states calling for more forces whenever they become nervous while taking only limited steps to fund and defend their own country suggests a disconnect with reality. this senate, by this resolution, is sending a clear call for nato to do more. it's not too late to maintain this alliance, as the force for good it has always been.

but everyone on both sides of the atlantic who understands these issues realizes we are in a precarious situation where miscalculation about the -- could occur and miscalculation can lead to violence and war. so it's time to make clear the strength of our commitment to each other and to ensure there is no miscalculation. to do that more is required of our nato allies. madam president i thank the chair and yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. vitter: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana.

mr. vitter: thank you, madam president. i rise today --,. the presiding officer: the sna is in a quorum call. mr. vitter: excuse me. i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. vitter: and having done so rise to speak about amendment number 1473. that is pending. i will be modifying it, not right now but later today in a technical way. the majority and the minority have been notified of this modification so i'll be making that later. and i'm going to talk about the substance of the amendment. this amendment is very significant in terms of our army force structure. it would limit any additional reductions the army can make to army b.c.t.'s, which have already been drastically reduced from 48 brigade combat teams in 2008 to 45 in 2013 to now 33 in

2015. so in just seven years from 48 to 53. obviously, a dramatic reduction. this is important because brigade combat teams are a very significant element of army force structure and lots of experts all across the spectrum would acknowledge that and would acknowledge that further significant reductions would be very dangerous. knownow, to clarify my amendment would require the army to trim its force structure. it doesn't stop that trend. but it also offers protections for that primary core unit of the brigade combat team without mandating additional maintain, additional requirements, et cetera. there is an urgent and serious need for congress to act quickly so that the defense department has the authority and support it needs to defend our nation. and this specific amendment

protecting those core required combat teams is supported by the national guard association of the united states and the association of the united states army. so the two key national groups that support the direct army and the national guard. now, some members, madam president, may argue that, well, we don't want to micromanage the army and how it deals with force structure. i certainly agree with that generally, but this is certainly not getting into the fine weeds. this is a major issue and brigade combat teams are a major tool of their force structure. furthermore, exactly this sort of limitation has been done in this bill, in the underlying bill both with regard to the

air force and with regard to the navy. the bill, as it stands here on the floor coming out of committee, includes numerous provisions to block the elimination of certain weapon systems like the air force fighter inventory the h-10 and h-130. to justify these -- blocking these eliminations, the chairman's report states -- quote -- "the committee believes further reductions in fighter force capacity in light of ongoing and anticipated operations in hishing and iraq and syria coupled with a potential delay of force withdrawals from afghanistan poses excessive risk to the air force ability to execute the national defense strategy causes remaining fighter squadrons to deploy more

frequently and drives even lower readiness rates across the combat air forces." close quote. exactly that same sort of rationale that is in the bill with regard to limitations of what the air force can do, exactly that rationale also applies to the army and bring brigade combat teams. in addition, the same sort of thing is already in this underlying bill with regard to the navy. there is specific language blocking certain further reductions of aircraft carriers. again, a major element of force structure. again, congress saying no, don't go below this number. that is not justified. that will weaken our overall capability and that will weaken force structure. again, on the navy side this bill, the chairman, the committee have done exactly the

same thing. my amendment would simply do something very, very similar and equally as important and justified on the army side with regard to brigade combat teams. so, because of the significance of brigade combat teams to army readiness and operations because of the enormous cuts that have already been made in those numbers in the last seven years from 48 to 33, i urge all of my colleagues, democrats and republicans, to support this commonsense amendment p. again madam president, to underscore, i'll be returning to the floor some time today to modify my amendment in a technical way. everyone, certainly including the majority and minority leaders on this bill, have been

given those modifications. they're not controversial. i'll simply wait for them to be on the floor to make that modification which is within my right and purview does not take consent. and then i'm very hopeful that this amendment will be teed up in the next group of votes perhaps around 3:30. thank you madam president. with that, i end my remarks and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mccain: madam president, i ask unanimous consent proceed ings under the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mccain: i'd like to say a few words about the burr amendment 1921, which has now been made pending and thank both chairman burr and vice chairman fine is stein for their -- feinstein for their

leadership for language of this amendment of which i am a cosponsor was approved by a 14-1 vote in the senate select committee on intelligence in march, implementing legislation to address a long list of cyber threats that have become all too common is among my highest priorities. earlier this month it was the office of personnel management in the army. a few weeks before that it was the pentagon network the white house and the state department. before that, anthem and sony. that's just to name a few. i'm pleased that we're able to consider this amendment on the defense authorization act. this voluntary information sharing is critical to addressing these threats and ensuring that the mechanisms are in place to identify those responsible for costly and crippling cyber attacks and ultimately deter future attacks. our current defenses are inadequate and our overall cyber strategy has failed to deter cyber adversaries from continued

attacks, intellectual property theft and cyber espionage against the u.s. government and american companies. this failure to develop a meaningful cyber-deterrent strategy has increased the resolve of our adversaries and will continue to do so at a growing risk to our national security until we demonstrate that the consequences of exploiting the united states through cyber greatly outweigh any perceived benefit. this amendment is a crucial piece of that overall deterrent strategy, and it is long past time that congress move forward on information-sharing legislation. this legislation again 14-1 from the intelligence committee complements a number of critical cyber provisions that are already in the bill that will ensure the department of defense has the capabilities it needs to deter aggression, defend our national security interests and when called upon to feed our

adversaries in cyber space. the bill authorizes the secretary of defense to develop prepare, coordinate and when authorized by the president conduct a military cyber operation in response to malicious cyber activity carried out against the united states or united states person by a foreign power. the bill includes a provision requiring the secretary of defense to conduct biennial exercises on responding to cyber attacks against critical infrastructure. it limits $10.0 million in funds available to the department of defense to provide support services to the executive office of the president until the president submits the integrated policy to deter adversaries in cyber space which is required by the national defense authorization act for fiscal

year 2014. it authorizes $200 million for a directed evaluation by the secretary of defense of the cyber vulnerabilities of every major d.o.d. weapon savimbi -- weapon system by not later than december 31. it requires the d.o.d. panel to require the national missions forces of the united states cyber command to reliably prevent or block large-scale attacks on the united states by foreign powers with capabilities comparable to those expected of china, iran, north korea and russia in the years 2020 and 2025. it establishes a $75 million cyber operations procurement fund for the commander of u.s. cyber command to exercise limited acquisition authorities. it directs the secretary of defense to designate department of defense entities to be responsible for the acquisition

of critical cyber capabilities. now, mr. president -- madam president, the cyber security bill was passed through the intelligence committee because that is clearly in many respects the responsibilities of the intelligence committee. but i think it's obvious to anyone that the department of defense is a major player. i just outlined a number of the provisions of the bill which are directly overseen and related to the department of defense. so my friends on the other side of the aisle seem to be all torqued up about the fact that this cyber bill is somehow going -- should be divorced from department of defense. i know that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are very

aware that just in the last few days four million americans -- four million americans -- had their privacy compromised by a cyber attack. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff has stated that we are ahead in every aspect of a potential adversary except for one. and that's cyber. and there is great threats that are now literally to america's supremacy in space and many other aspects of the technology that has been developed throughout the world. and is now part of our daily lives. so i'm not quite sure why my friends on the other side of the aisle should take such exception to legislation which addresses

our national security and the threats to it, which literally every expert in america have agreed is a major threat to our ability to defend the nation. so i not only -- i think that if my colleagues who are not on the intelligence committee and are not familiar with the provisions of this bill, it clearly is not only department of defense related, it's department of defense centric. funds available with the d.o.d. to provide services to the executive office of the president. $200 million for directed cybervulnerabilities of every major d.o.d. weapons system. an independent panel in d.o.d. war games. on and on. it's department of defense related, and it is -- the whole

purpose of the defense authorization bill is to defend the nation, to leave cybersecurity out of that, yes there are some provisions in the underlying bill, but this hones and refines the requirements that we are in badly need of and gives the president tools -- the president of the united states and the secretary of defense the tools to try to limit the damage which is occurring as we speak. i want to repeat. i believe my colleague from indiana, who is a member of that committee, i believe i would ask him, is it four million americans recently were compromised by cyberattack. mr. coats: well, in response to my friend from arizona -- mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent to engage in colloquy with the senator from indiana. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. coats: this is a serious breach and there is more to the

story to be told. it shows the extreme position that we are in here as americans, as those who want to take this country down, those who want to invade the privacy of americans have the capabilities of breaching this, and the legislation that -- before us and the reason why it's brought here now and hopefully attached to the defense bill is that this needs to be done now not later. how many breaches do we have to hear about whether it's the private sector or whether it's the government sector before this congress and this senate will stand up and say we have the capability of preventing some of these things from happening, but we need the legislative authority to do it. and to delay and not even allow us to go forward with this, it puts more and more millions of americans at risk, whether they work for the government or whether they're in private industry. mr. mccain: and isn't it true,

i'd ask my colleague from indiana, that the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff recently stated that in the potential of our adversaries to threaten our security, we have a definite superiority in all areas except for one in the issue of cybersecurity. is that -- isn't that correct? mr. coats: well, i think that's obvious because clearly while we have the capability to address some of these issues, we're not allowed to use the capability. this legislation gives us the opportunity to have a cooperative effort than some of those who resisted the use of this because they think it was potentially a breach of privacy now understand that the breaches are occurring from outside into the united states for those who are enemies of the state those who are criminal groups, those who are terrorist groups, and while we may have the capacity to deal with this without this

legislative authority, we are not allowed to use it. so what an irony what an irony that some of those who are saying well, we can't trust the government on this to help us, this is part of -- this is a defense. it's like saying we can't trust the department of defense you can't trust the army or the navy to protect us from attack because it's government run. well now they're saying there are some operations in government here that are part of our defenses that can't be used until we have the authority. and the irony is, is that people's privacies are being breached by all these attempts, and we're denying the opportunity to put the tools in place to stop that from happening. mr. mccain: could i ask my colleague again. the four million people whose privacy was just breached, four million americans what damage, what potential damage is that to those individual americans? mr. coats: well, we're just learning what damage this is and how it can be misused in any

number of ways, and some of this information is classified, but i can say to my colleague from arizona the chairman of the armed services committee that this puts some of our people in some of our systems in great peril. it's something that needs to be addressed now not pushed down the line. mr. mccain: so it seems to me that to those four million americans, that we owe them, that it is our responsibility, in fact our urgent responsibility to try to prevent that same kind of breach to be perpetrated on four million or eight million or ten million more americans. if they are capable of doing it once to four million americans what's to keep them from doing the same thing to millions of americans more? if we sit here idly by and do

nothing on the grounds that the objection is that it's not part of the department of defense bill which seems to me almost ludicrous. mr. coats: well, since the department of defense is one of those entities that's being attacked i would certainly think this is appropriate attachment to a bill that hopefully, if we're given the opportunity here by our friends across the aisle hopefully we'll be able to pass here in the senate and move on to the house and get it to the president so that these authorities can be in place. you know, the senator mentioned four million. a company whose headquarters is in the state of indiana anthem, an insurance company was -- they were breached, and this is public information, 80 million people on their rolls. so that's almost a third of all of -- of every american has had their private information breached by a cyberattack.

and not to mention the threat that comes from a cyber attack on our critical infrastructure. what if they take down the financial system of one of our major banks or several of our banks? what if they take down the financial transactions that they place on wall street every day? what if they take -- shut down electric power grid in the middle of february when the temperatures in the northeast are in minus fahrenheit temperatures or when it's 110 degrees in phoenix and you lose your power and you can't turn on an air conditioner? people will die. people will be severely impacted by this. and to not go forward and give authorization to use the tools to try to better protect american safety is i think not only unreasonable, but it's, it's a very serious thing. mr. mccain: i thank my colleague from indiana for his

outstanding work on a very difficult issue that poses a threat to every american and citizens throughout the world. madam president, i yield the floor..

the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. speaker i rise in support of mr. vitter's amendment number 1473 which requires the army to maintain no fewer than 32 brigade combat teams referred to as b.c. it's. mr. cassidy: i support this amendment because cutting the brigade combat teams is cutting the core of the army's structure and their ability to perform their mission. this amendment requires the army to maintain a brigade combat team level of 32. currently the army is planning on cutting these to 30 and continue to cutting to a point where we will have a hollow

force. ness a shortsighted approach -- this is a shortsighted approach to a bigger problem. the amendment says the secretary shall give priority under this paragraph to be carried out as funding or appropriations becomes available first. secondly nothing in this section shall be con strewed to supersede the army's combatting of teams at designated levels and it requires congressional defense committee to have a report on the current manning of each brigade combat team of the army. it also ensures the army national guard brigade combat teams are maintained at 26, and this accounts for the deactivation of two international guard brigade combat teams previously agreed to. you may ask why do we need 32 brigade combat teams. at the height of the iraq and afghanistan wars, we had 48 brigade combat teams and

things if you've noticed, in the middle east are getting worse, not better. this is not to say that we will commit these troops, but it will be to say that we shall maintain our readiness. next the army's key weapon system is the brigade combat team. this amendment protects that key weapon from those cuts. lastly reducing brigade combat teams does not -- i emphasize does not -- make existing brigade combat teams more ready. it wears them out. if you have fewer teams, they are deployed more often in whatever activity they were deployed to and that just stretches that manpower and that womanpower potentially to the break. under this, with the higher level of force, there is less stress upon those who are there maintaining their readiness.

in total this amendment requires the army to take a closer look at their strategy and risk forcing the army to think long term instead of just cutting the most crucial part of our force which is the people. the human capital. our fellow citizens. thank you mr. president. i yield back. and i observe the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: mr. president are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. portman: i rise to support the underlying bill we're talking about which is the defense authorization bill at a time of rapidly deteriorating security environment around the world, we need to modify our policies from the violence in iraq and syria to china's aggressive land reclamation in the south china sea and russia's

activities. we live in a world that is a lot less safe and friendly to u.s. interests. every day we see more of this and, frankly it's time for us here in the united states senate to help by changing some of our policy preaches to address this changing and more dangerous situation we see around the world. i would hope we could do this on a bipartisan basis. our differences with regard to other issues tend to be more pronounced but with regard to national security normally we come together. and i'm concerned with what i'm hearing at least from some of the debate i've heard on the floor here where it sounds like some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to shut down this debate, to not have a debate on some of these amendments and not have some he votes on some of these amendments and not have a vote on this bill to try to adjust our national security posture so we can address these new challenges around the world. doesn't mean that everything that this side of the aisle wants to do would be accepted. you know, democrats would have a chance to offer their ideas

and we would have a good with debate on it and they would have say in it. would you need democrat support to get the legislation done. but let's have that debate, that discussion. let's hope, what i'm hearing is not accurate, that we could come together to have the discussion have votes on the amendments and votes on the final bill and be able to help to the extent we can in understand the to adjust our foreign policy and our national security policy to address these very real threats we see emerging all over the world. i'll give you an example of one and i'll offer it today this is an amendment that has to do with ukraine. as some of you know, the situation in ukraine has deteriorated significantly in the last year or so, and it has so because russia not only invaded crimea and took that part of ukraine but they're also now continuing their aggression on the border of ukraine and this is a situation that affects us as americans because ukraine is our ally. and ukraine is a country that

has decided to stand with us. and it's time for us and the other nato countries to stand with them. our policy toward ukraine in my view has been not just insufficient but kind of piecemeal. we haven't had a strategy to deal with this issue. so what this amendment attempts to do is take the language in the underlying legislation already in the bill the committee has put together and improve it so indeed we do have a more comprehensive strategy toward ukraine which is incredibly important not just for ukraine but for the international order for our national security and for the ability for us to help stop this aggression in europe. the first really since world war ii we've seen like this where a country is going across another country's boundaries and actually violating integrity. i visited ukraine in april. i got to see some of the conflict first hand, for those of how have been to ukraine a number of my colleagues have

including senator durbin who just got back from ukraine i think they would all agree with me that ukraine is in a state of war and it's under siege. and it makes it much for difficult for ukraine to do what they know they need to do, which is to improve their economy, have more transparency become more like those countries they want to emulate, the european countries, the united states of america. they are attempting to do that but boy it's difficult when you've got this conflict on your border where your troops are killed civilians killed, have to devote enormous amounts of time and resources. just this week i had the opportunity to meet with the prime minister of ukraine and the finance minister both of whom were in town, we met them as part of the ukranian caucus, something i cofounded with senator durbin. talking to them, it's very troubling to hair what's happening in their country right now. so as some of you know there's is supposed to be a cease-fire,

from the second so-called minsk agreement, whatever it had left i don't think it had much it's totally crumbleled. last week a combined russian separatist force launched an assault to the north and southwest of the province of dnest. known as an oblast or a province where there is a lot of russian activity. they were focused on the town of marienko. it looks like these separateist forces backed by russia and russian equipment are beginning to push back into ukraine again. the casualty reports are coming in but it appears dozens have been killed, wounded in this assault according to bbc so these independent news organizations are following this and i hope that all of us are focused on this. the united states intelligence in areas is not what it ought to

be in my view so we do need to rely on media sores and it's -- sources and it's clear in terms of this assault they were using tanks heavy launch rocket systems, over a thousand men were involved. so clearly this is something that is not only a serious military exercise, it's one that's backed by russia using russian equipment. we've seen just how committed the russian government is to this to promoting instability in that region of the world. they are committed. the question is whether we're committed to step up and support the people of ukraine something in my view the nato forces, the united states should have done a long time ago, not by us getting involved directly and that's not what the ukrainians are asking for. they're asking for aid to be able to defend themselves. they're asking for us to help them to be able to stop this assault by giving them just some basic weaponry they need to stop tanks, potentially to stop aircraft if aircraft get involved, to be able again to stop the invasion and to protect

the territoryial integrity of the -- territorial integrity of the country of ukraine. the president and his advisors stop in the way of meaningful nato action. they say they fear it would provoke russia. as if deadly clashes like the one we saw last week and, in fact yesterday continue to see today, probably, or the steady stream of russian tanks and artillery pieces in ukraine aren't evidence enough that nato and american restraint not have deescalated this conflict. it has emboldened the russians, inflamed it. we are talking about helping this country that is our ally, has turned to us through nato, we want them to be able to defend themselves. the president continues to enforce this de facto embargo on any significant weapons the ukraine needs to defend itself, despite an overwhelming

bipartisan consensus in this body and the other body, the house it's time to increase this help. that would include lethal and nonlethal assistance to ukraine. congress has voted to do that, in the ukranian freedom support act which was signed into law in december. but it provided the president a national security waiver, so he didn't have to do what we think he should do, help them to defend themselves. the administration continues to withhold these arms and it's time for that to end. there is little disagreement on the capabilities ukraine needs. my amendment number 1850, modifies and builds on the great work that senator mccain and senator reed and others have already done in the bill, if you look at section 2 -- 1251 of the bill there is $150 million aid provided to ukraine. our amendment provides it in the way to enissue we get the most bang for the buck. it requires the secretary of

defense to spend on a number of critical capabilities they need including real-time intelligence medium and long-range radars, lethal assistance such as u.a.v.'s and secure communications and training to develop support capabilities at the small unit level and at the brigade alexander. so it provides -- level. it provides less wiggle room for the administration, by laying out what's asked for by the ukranian military, and having done a lot of work through the ukranian caucus and other sources we knee what's necessary. half boob fenced off until $60 million is spent on the capability the ukrainians have needed the real-time intelligence and counterartillery batteries. if the administration fails to use the money for the purposes specified they have to use it for other a nations face like georgia and moldova.

the amendment requires to provide the assistance provided to the ukraine and how it complies with the purposes established in the legislation. the amendment helps ensure u.s. military assistance will have a meaningful impact on the ground and gives ukraine the tools it needs to defend itself. it will also finally know. the cost -- final lip increase the cost of aircraft's grease. at no point has putin's decision to escalate the war been costly enough. the annexation of crimea, the campaign to destabilize and invade eastern ukraine last summer have happened despite a flurry of western attempts to force a negotiated settlement. in fact, each temporary cease-fire has legitimized what the russians have done. when there is this flurry of diplomatic activity it's after the russians have made gains on the ground and it accepts those

gains as the basis for negotiations. granting the separatists and the russian supporters moral and by say some legal quill sensey they don't deserve. -- equivalenty. they break the cease-fire as they're doing right now to seize more land and use a new cease-fire to secure acceptance of their gains. this has got to stop. the obama administration and some e.u. members have been fixated on ensuring the successful implementation of the february cease-fire is a goal if in and of itself they've lost sight of the objective. a cease-fire should be working to achieve which should be the defense of ukranian sovereignty and support for the economic and political reforms ukraine needs. and let me underscore that. it's very difficult for them to undertake the economic reforms they need and the political reforms they need with this siege going on. and that's what we need. we need them to make those reforms so they cannot just keep

their territorial integrity but also so they become a stable, democratic and prosperous country. russian aggression in ukraine is not going to resolve itself simply because we wish it so. it will take this comprehensive strategy we've laid out in this amendment and coordinated political, economic and military actions to change the dynamic. sanctions and assistance are important but they're tools not a strategy. attempts to use economic or political means have failed. what they have found the russians and the separatists is they try to do it through economic means it's no accident that their most successful tactic the military tactic, is the one that the united states and the west has done the least to address. i have argued for months that this piecemeal reactionary response to intimidation from moscow is a recipe for failure.

we've got to have a comprehensive, proactive strategy that strepgens nato, deters russian aggression and gives ukraine the economic and military support it needs to maintain its independence. we need a strategy that seeks to shape the outcome rather than one that is shaped by them. much of that leadership must come from us and the administration here in the united states. of course, this body also has an important role to plashings and that's what this amendment is all about. let's include funding for the ukrainian military system, not just in this authorization bill, where we're setting the policy for it, let's provide the ukrainians what they need. we should pass this legislation the underlying bill, which chairman mccain has correctly noted is critical to help us deal with so many challenges in the dangerous world that we face. and we should pass again this defense spending bill that doesn't leave our men and women without the means to carry out their critical mission. for today's purposes, we've got to be very clear about what the

stakes are in ukraine. events in ucane are a direct and deliberate l challenge to the credibility of nato itself, to the u.s.-led international order. president putin's actions up-end deducts of established international norms and threatens really the very foundation of this system order. confidence in america and our european allies' unity and commitment to up-holding the system deters bad actors, it incentivizes other countries to play by the rules. that's what we want. if the credibility of our commitment is in doubt economic collapse more violence, more instability increases. and to avoid chaos ensues. ukrainians certainly understand this the importance of this conflict well beyond their borders. i hope the united states of america, we understand it. i hope we act in a way to help the ukrainians be able to defend themselves and counter these activities on the eastern border

of ukraine. thank you mr. president. i yield back my time. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate be in a period of debate only until 3:00 p.m. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. portman: mr. president i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mrs. boxer: thank you so much, mr. president. and i would ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business until i conclude. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mrs. boxer: well, thank you very much, mr. president. i come to talk about something different than the pending legislation. i have a number of things to say about that, a number of amendments i'm supporting, many of them bipartisan. but at this point i want to talk about the crisis that we're facing in terms of our highway bill. we now have 51 days until the highway trust fund is empty and for all of us this is a terrible

prospect because a lot of our states rely on the federal government up to 85%-90% of their funding some like my state are a little less, i think about 50% -- is that right? -- about 50% for my state but that's still huge. and when this trust fund goes under, we're in a lot of trouble. now, what we've seen in this particular senate, since our friends took over -- and they are my friends -- we've seen a number of self-inflicted crises. lord knows we have enough of them coming our way. we don't have to invent them. but we have seen several. in the first crisis we had, we were headed toward a partial shutdown of the department of homeland security over an unrelated immigration issue. that was ridiculous, and there was a lot of angt of angst around here, and finally it was resolved.

there was a second last week. the senate leader didn't like the u.s.a. freedom act as it passed in the house overwhelmingly. as a result, he for several days turned away from 57, 58, and more senators who actually supported that bill and he brought the surveillance of terrorists to a screeching halt. that wasn't what he wanted to do but as a result of that self-inflicted crisis, we had a couple of moments there where we were dark. that problem luckily ended after a couple of days, and now we're headed for another self-inflicted crisis, although i must say from conversations i've had, i have some hope, mr. president, that we can avert this crisis. we've known about this since last december, when democrats said let's stay in until we solve the highway trust fund, and republicans said, oh, no ... let's just take care of it until

may and then in may republican friends said, let's just take care of it until july. and that is no way to run a country. it is no way to run a transportation system. it's ridiculous, and our states, as i will point out later are starting to cut -- are starting to cut way back on transportation pronls, projects, highways bridge re-pairings transit systems because they're scared we're not going to reach agreement. so 51 day and i'm here today to talk about this. now, alexander next i next i want to show you a photograph -- i'll take this down -- a photograph of the bridge collapse in minneapolis minnesota that happened in august 2007. this i-37 bridge collapsed because there was a design flaw that went undetected because there were not enough inspections made on the bridge, because there wasn't enough being spent on insuring that our

-- ensuring that our bridges are safe. and so, to me, as i look at this it's a metaphor for the current status of the highway trust fund, which supports thousands of businesses and millions of jobs and is on the verge of bankruptcy. so if you see this photograph, you see chaos you see danger, you see disaster, and even though there are no people you can see, you can imagine the shock that occurred from this collapse. now, you might think this is an isolated incident, but i want to tell you mr. president that we have 61,300 bridges in the u.s. which have been cited as being structurally deficient by engineers. the fact that we don't have a multiyear plan in place to fix these bridges is a shame upon our nation.

a shame upon our nation. if you had your loved one in one of these cars, you would know that this is unacceptable. my message today is simple: to both sides of the aisle and to the house and the senate, we cannot afford to pass yet another short-term extension because that doesn't give us the certainty or the funds to fix bridges like these. the 61,300 bridges that need repair: the continued inaction by congress to enact a long-term bill is a disgrace, and we need to meet this challenge head-on. now, i have heard rumors that we're making progress -- and i know we are in the environment and public works committee. i serve on that committee with

my friend. senator inhofe and i have agreed that we're going to go tabored a multiyear -- that we're going to go forward with a multiyear bill. this is wonderful. it is a little late in the day. i'm proud that he and i have aagreed that this is a priority, and we have a date set of june 24 to mark up the bill. now, that's only about 35 days before the collapse of the trust fund but if all the other committees would do their job like our committee is, we'd be okay. and so, yes, i am encouraged, but there are three other committees that haven't set dates to mark up anything, as far as i know. so unless a miracle occurs, i believe my republican friends are going to ask us for yet another short-term extension. now, if you went out on the street mr. president and you stopped anybody -- republican, democratic whatever age -- if you asked, is it controversial for the federal government to

fund transportation projects? they would say no. maintaining and improving our roads, bridges and transit systems, that's a necessity. it's a necessary investment in our future that was recognized at our country's founding. in the constitution. and that's why senator inhofe, who is one of the leading conservatives -- maybe "the" leading conservative in the united states -- and myself, a very strong, progressive member agree. article 1 section 8, of the constitution gave congress the authority -- quote -- "to establish post post offices and roads." understand that has continued throughout our nation's history. it dates back 100 years to the passage of the federal aid road act of 1916 and the federal highway act of 1921. but i have to quote you know, one of my favorite presidents,

dwight eisenhower. in 1956, he established the highway trust fund to serve as the major source of funding for our nation's highway systems. and this was significant because it was a large increase in federal infrastructure investment because president eisenhower knew that we needed modern efficient transportation systems to ensure our security, and i say "security." because this is what president-elect dwight eisenhower said, and this is a general, a hero from world war ii. "a network of modern roads is as necessary to defense as it is to our national economy and personal safety." he viewed a network of modern roads as a necessity to our defense, and i would add add the word " "bridges" because you could

have a convoy going over our brinls too. so general eisenhower and then president eisenhower knew new important an efficient system of roads is to our military and national dwns. while serving in the a.m., way back in 1919, he joined a convoy of approximately 80 trucks and other military vehicles to cross from washington, d.c., to san francisco, to test the military's motor vehicles. this trip took two months, averaging six miles an hour. from this experience, plus his countless other experiences with the military both home and abroad he understood how important a reliable transportation system is to a first-world nation. and, again, this is what he said. "a network of modern roads is as necessary to defense as it is to our national economy and personal safety."

today our economy still relies on interconnected transportation systems to move goods out of major ports of entry. i want to talk about my own state, because in the port of los angeles we take in about 40% of the nation's imports. and we know they go straight out onto those roads and they deliver goods all over our great nation. and we know that there's a universal understanding that we have to maintain that road system. so we can move people and goods efficiently. these surface transportation systems which used to be the envy of the world remain the foundation of a strong u.s. economy and enable us to compete in the global marketplace. now, i hope you heard that i said our transportation system used to be the envy of the world, because it is no longer the envy of the world. and it is our fault. this has got to be a priority.

the u.s. lags behind its overseas competitors in infrastructure investment. according to the most recent world economic forum rankings, within the past decade, the u.s. has fallen from seventh to 16th in the quality of our roads. we are behind countries such as china, portugal, oman. this is ridiculous. the greatest nation in the world, that's what we are but we're falling behind on our infrastructure because we don't have the guts to face the fact that we have to fund the highway system. why are we behind? we only spend 2% of our gross domestic product on infrastructure and that is a 50% decline from 1960. so we spend 2% of our gross domestic product while europe spends 5% and china 9%.

the federal government does provide, as i said, over 50% of the capital expenditures for state highway projects nationwide which means that all of our states and all of our local governments rely heavily on federal funding to maintain and to improve their transportation. however, this is just a national average. i want to say that -- and i see my colleagues have changed places here -- for south carolina, south carolina depends on the federal government for 80% of their highway funds and their bridge repair. 80%. california is 50%. north dakota is 80%. montana is 87%. so what i am saying to my colleagues who i hope are listening somewhere that if we don't act to fill the highway trust fund and meet this looming made-up crisis, take -- check out your state and how much you rely on federal funds.

i already showed you the picture of minnesota bridge collapse. i'd like to put that up again. because i think that this picture, the minnesota bridge collapse is a metaphor for where we are. our whole thing is discombobulated. our whole thing is disrupted because we can't have the courage to fund the highway trust fund. which as president eisenhower said all those years ago was critical to our national security. now, i'm going to keep this picture up here for a minute. i want to talk about our states and the bridges that are in dis repair and i hope people who may be listening across the country, if you live in one of these states, give a call to your senator and ask him or her what are you doing to fill the highway trust fund? for example, in kentucky there are over 1,100 structurally

deficient bridges, bridges that could look like this. pennsylvania has more than 5,000 structurally deficient bridges which accounts for over 20% of all the bridges in their state. in addition to the dangerously poor conditions of our bridges 50% of our nation's roads are in less than good condition and these roads and bridges that are in no longer in good working condition span the country. i'm going to show you mr. president, a chart i don't think we've ever talked about here. this is examples of efficient highway bridges in need of repair. and alabama i-65 over u.s.-11 in jefferson county. arizona, i-17 bridge over 19th avenue in maricopa county arkansas i-30 bridge over the u.p. bridge in pulaski county. california the golden gate

bridge for goodness sakes. colorado the i-70 bridge in denver. district of columbia, memorial bridge. there was a press conference right near the memorial bridge by one of my colleagues a couple of weeks ago and people are getting really scared about it. and the point of this isn't to scare anybody. the point about this is to say to my colleagues, we are responsible. you know maybe it's me. when i was growing up my mother and father said if you know there's a problem do something about it. you don't have a right to turn your back and walk away. i remember once when i was a county supervisor, i found out that the county building we were in was earthquake prone. nobody talked about it. as soon as i found out it could collapse in an earthquake, i brought it to my colleagues. i said colleagues, we need to do something. you know what they said, one or two of them to me? don't bring it up. we don't have the money.

excuse me. you have to have the money if you know that the building you're in could collapse in an earthquake and you have to have the money if you know all these bridges are in disrepair. so let's continue. there's the florida pensacola bay bridge. georgia, bridge in fulton county. hawaii halona street bridge in honolulu. illinois poplar street bridge. indiana, the bridge over the c csx railroad. iowa the centennial bridge. kentucky another one the brent spence bridge. louisiana, another bridge there, maine i have -- i have to say this right -- piscataqua river bridge. maryland, chesapeake bay bridge. massachusetts, the i-95 bridge in middlesex. michigan the i-75 rouge river

bridge. remember if you're hearing my voice and you're hearing your state mentioned give a call to your senator and ask him or her whether they're a democrat or republican what they're doing about the highway trust fund because in 51 days it goes bust okay? in minnesota did i mention that? the i-35 east bridge over pennsylvania avenue. in mississippi the vicksburg bridge. in missouri, the east bridge over conway road. in nevada, the virginia street bridge in reno. in new hampshire, the i-293 brimming in whose borough. in funeral, the garden state parkway in union county. in new mexico, main street bridge. in new york, the brooklyn bridge. the brooklyn bridge. if you didn't read the book "the brooklyn bridge" you should read it by david mccullough. it's an incredible book.

we don't want to lose the brooklyn bridge. in ohio, the john ro ebing suspension bridge. the oklahoma, the bridge over crooked oak creek. in oregon, the columbia river crossing. the pennsylvania the benjamin franklin bridge. the rhode island, the viaduct in providence. in south carolina, the i-85 bridge in greenville. in texas the i-45 bridge over white oak bayou. in utah, the i-15 bridge over s.r. 93 in davis county. in washington, the evergreen point floating bridge. in wisconsin the us-41 bridge over a river. now, pi just have to -- i just have to ask my friends on both sides of the aisle. if the roof over your house is about to cave in with your children inside and you know about it, wouldn't you find a way to pay for that repair or would you let it collapse on

your kids? the answer is obvious. of course we're going to fix the bridge in our house. you have to keep the infrastructure in good repair. though the roof is caving in on our roads and bridges and lord help us if we don't act and someone else goes down in a crisis. now, we can look at the details surrounding the i-35 bridge collapse in minneapolis minnesota, shown in that picture again. on august 1, 2007, this eight-lane bridge which was minnesota's seconds busiest bridge carrying 140,000 vehicles every day suddenly collapsed during rush hour, killing 13 people and injuring 145 people. it is krill for our nation to continue investing in our aiming infrastructure. everybody knows it. everybody knows it. the congress, the states, the businesses the american workers.

republicans say that they're for infrastructure investment but haven't acted. happily we're having a markup, i'm excited about it, in our e. p.w. committee. not one other committee has marked up a long-term bill. the highway trust fund is an integral part of how the federal government provides predictable multiyear funding to states so the states can plan and construct long-term highway bridge, and transit projects. therefore, the highway trust fund should be our number-one priority. in 51 days the fund goes bust. it's gone. we won't be able to pay all of our bills. so we have to move quickly. because otherwise we will face a transportation shutdown. the currently -- the law that currently authorizes our transportation programs is set to expire july 1 and the trust

fund will go bankrupt shortly thereafter. the clock is ticking and failure is not an option. let's put up that 51-day ticking time bomb, if you will. the highway trust fund is in serious trouble and much-needed transportation projects are in peril. the short fund creates uncertainty and uncertainty is terrible for business, it's terrible for workers it's terrible for the economy. billions of dollars will be delayed to our states. many states, including utah arkansas georgia tennessee and wyoming have already delayed or canceled construction projects due to the uncertainty in the funding. we are facing a crisis, and everybody knows it, and if we don't act and act quickly, we will see a domino effect that

will be felt throughout our economy. now, i don't think i have to remind people that we came out of the worst recession since the great depression. i was here when we saw that happen at the end of george w. bush's term and we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. i remember standing here on the floor of the senate just feeling that the whole world was collapsing around me. and the recovery is taking a long time, and thank god it is moving forward now. our economy though, is still recovering and we must have a strong modern, efficient transportation system to move goods and people. there are some people that absolutely need transportation to get to work. this isn't a game. even if they need -- either they need their cars or hop on a bus or subway and we have 51 days until the highway trust fund is empty.

now, the amount of money we need just to keep up with the demand right now to fix our roads and our bridges that amount is $123 billion. just to catch up on the nightmare that we're facing. so we not only need a six-year bill but we need one that is robust so we can start spending some money on these repairs. millions of jobs and thousands of businesses are at stake here. and we know it's 51 days, and i've stood in several press conferences with business leaders, the chamber of commerce the afl-cio construction workers the concrete people, the tar people the granite people, you name it, they are united, as one america in favor of a six-year solution, and i will show you just some of the people

that i've stood with over time in recent days. the afl-cio the u.s. chamber of commerce. now, mr. president, you know it's hard to get them on the same page. they're on the same page. they want this fixed. the u.s. conference of mayors. the american association of state highway and transportation officials. the american council of engineering companies. the american highway users alliance. the american public transportation association. the american road and transportation builders. the american society of civil engineers. the american trucking association. do you know that the truckers have said to me, senator we are willing to pay more in our gas tax because we cannot continue to ride on these roads that are falling apart. when is the last time someone came up to you and said raise my gas tax? it's rare. but the trucking -- the truckers have asked us to do it as long as we use the money to

fix the roads. the chamber of commerce has asked us to raise the gas tax six, eight cents. i mean this is unusual. and i know there's very little support for that. i have proposed numerous ways to pay for the trust fund, including a refundable gas tax increase so if you earn $100,000 or less in your family you get back the increase which is about $40 a year. so i think it's worth $40 a year to know the bridge you drive on is safe. but we would make it refund baling so you would -- -- but weld make it refundable so you would get that back if you are a the middle class or bea low. face ago shutdown or seeing a shutdown in five or six or seven states is painful for business. the and i have seen business people come before me with their

head in their hands because they build the highways, they fix the bridges, they build the transit systems, and they know we have not come together yet. i'll tell you it's a recipe for disaster. what planet are we living on? all of america wants this -- do we have some more of these names? i'll continue. i just read some of them. i'll read some more. atessociateed general contractors, the associate ssociation of equipment manufacturers, the association of metropolitan planning organizations, the international union of operating engineers the laborers' international unilateral the national asphalt pavement association the national association of quointses, the national association of manufacturers -- mr. president, nam the the national association of manufacturers, and the associated general contractors and the international union of operating engineers the laborers' international union -- this is all america. thisthis isn't red this isn't blue.

this is everybody. everybody want ution to fix the roads. everybody wants us to fix the brinls. the national association of truck stop operators. the national governors' association. now, the governors are republicans and democrats. they are begging us to get our act in gear and get this done. the national league of cities. and finally the national ready mixed concrete association the national stone sand, and gravel association, the owner-operator independent drivers association the portland cement association the retail industry leaders leaders. mr. president, the list that i read is a partial list. the list that i read, frankly are mostly republican-leaning organizations. why have we not done our job? why don't we already have a

long-term transportation bill before us before the fund goes bust in 51 days? why? it is congress' responsibility to act quickly to address our nation's infrastructure needs and every day that the republicans fail to move forward with a bill, they are putting people at risk. this isn't about philosophy. this is about bread and butter. this is about getting to work safely. this is about driving with our family and not being fearful that your bridge you're on is going to fail. now, i'm always asked well, senator, that's all well and good but how are you going to pay for this thing? well, i have a lot of ideas and i'll lay them out. there are many, many ways to pay. and i'll give you a sampling, just a sampling of ideas. and i will embrace these ideas.

i will work with any democrat or republican on any one of these ideas. replacing existing gas and diesel fuel fees with a user-fee charge at the re-fiewnry at the refinery based on the fuel price. do away with the gas tax and replace it with a a refinery-based fee. they did that in virginia. i think it is working well. index those fees to inflation along with a refundable tax credit for low- and middle-income families to offset the cost. so we can have a modest increase of six seven eight cents on the gas tax and make it refundable to families earning $100,000 or less. assess a user fee on the sale of new and used vehicles. that's another idea. use revenue generated from repatriation of corporate earnings. that's international tax reform. we have a lot of money sitting

abroad from corporations who have parked it there. they don't like the rate of their tax. if we lower their tax that money can come home, and we can use the taxes we collect to fund the highway trust fund. i have a bill on that with senator paul. it's bipartisan. join us. join us and let's fix this problem. how about this: borrowing money from the general fund to be paid back from the stimulative effect of transportation infrastructure investments on the economy. when we make these investments they generate so much employment and so much business that people will pay income taxes because they're working. these are millions of jobs, thousands of businesses. then another way to pay for it: are apply a new honor-based user fee on the number of miles each individual drives each year. so when you fill out to get your car registered, just tell me, how many miles you traveled last

year and there will be a modest fee, and we can help the trust fund. and, by the way i notice my friends want to use savings from reducing the overseas contingency operations qut. they wnts to use that montana. they use it for military. why not use it for saving the trust fund? and how about the savings of uncollected revenues owed to the federal government? we just collected a third of those, we'd meet the shortfall. so as i count these ideas -- let's see ... one two three four five, six seven eight ideas that i have. and i'm sure everybody has got their own ideas. there's not a shortage of ideas. there's a bit of a shortage of courage to come out and say the obvious. if your roof is about to collapse on your home, it will cost you something to fix it. admit it up front. you're not -- no one is going to do it for free.

no one is going to fix these 60,000-plus bridges for free. no one is going to build new highways for free. no one is going to build new transit systems for free. grow up and pay for it. this is ridiculous. i am speaking for myself. i will support any of these eight ideas or any combination of those. we know our country is in danger. our people are in danger every day because of these structurally deficient bridges. if we don't do anything about it we're liable -- maybe not in a court of law but in my mind it's a moral responsibility. so i can support any of these ideas. some of them are conservative ideas, some of them are liberal ideas. i don't care. i want to pay for them -- the highway trust fund. the bottom line is, the only solution is a consensus-based

bipartisan six-year transportation bill that will provide states and local communities the funding and the certainty they need to build these multiyear projects and modernize our infrastructure. this isn't rocket science. choose one of the options. add one of your own. do a combination of these options. let's have the courage and the moral fortitude to do what is our responsibility. we know our nation's infrastructure is deteriorating. we are responsible for it. this is one nation under god. and we have to act to prk our people. it's our job. and i think the clearest message was from president eyes inhour on this point and president reagan who stepped up to the plate -- i don't know if we have his quote on it -- do you have it in there? -- i'd like to find it. president reagan signed into law

an increase in the gas tax. he was so proud. he said, i'm proud to do this. we have to do this. leltlet me read you his quote. he signed the surface transportation bill which did increase the gas tax and he said "because of the prompt and bipartisan action of congress, we can now ensure for our children a special part of their heritage a network of highways and mass transit that has enabled our commerce to thrive, our country to grow, and our people to roam freely and easily to every corner of our land." president ronald reagan. i got elected the same year he said this. i'm giving away my age but i was proud that my president understood this. i didn't agree with ronald reagan on a bunch of things. he said once, if you've seen one tree you've seen them aumf i

never agreed with that. but setting that aside i agreed with what he said. this is mag any of spt. listen to this. "because of the prompt and bipartisan action of congress, we can ensure for our children a special part of their heritage, a network of highways and transit that's enabled our commerce to thrive, our country to grow, and our people to roam freely and easily to every corner of this land." i'll tell you another earn person that i really admire on this is senator inhofe, my friend from oklahoma, my chairman. i was his chairman for a few years -- i think eight -- arntiondzandunfortunately for me, i'm no longer the chairman. i'm the ranking member. but i will at tell you why we did hand-to-hand combat on the environment -- and we did that today. when it comes to infrastructure, we're very close. "the conservative thing to do is to pass a bill instead of having

extensions," is what he said. an onanthony fox our transportation secretary, he he and is 1 of 11 of his predecessor hoferredz an open letter to congress expressing their support for passage of a long-term bill. this is what they said, and remember this was signed by people who work for follow me, johnson, ford, reagan, george herbert walker bush, clinton george w., and obama. they offered an open letter. this is what they said said about the situation now. "never why our inauguration's history has america's transportation system been on a more unsustainable course. what america needs is to break this cycle of governing crisis to crisis only to enact a stopgap measure at the last moment. we need to make a commitment to the american people and the american economy." unquote.

that's four republican presidents and three democratic presidents people from those administrations. my goodness, there's bipartisanship everywhere but around here. -- in this room. i read you the list of everybody who wants this bill, and it's pretty impressive. labor, business, everybody small business, large business. and it's pretty extraordinary. a survey by the national association of manufacturers one of our more conservative organizations, of its members found 65% don't believe our infrastructure is sufficient. we know from the texas institute study that traffic congestion in 2011 was 121 billion.

people are wasting so much time in traffic. the cost to trucked goods moving 0 on our highway system, $27 billion in wasted time and diesel fuel. so i hear a loflt a lot of talk about passing a long-term highway bill. i'm happy about hearing that. i'm starting to hear my republican friends say maybe we can do it. i think dwoak we can do it. we still have fewer construction jobs than we had before the recession. so the clock is ticking. failure is not an option. let's get going. let's come together and do the right thing. pass the highway bill. thank you.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. a senator: mr. president are we in a quorum call?

the presiding officer: the senate is not in a quorum call. mr. coons: mr. president i've come to the floor today following on the speech just delivered by senator boxer. she highlighted her concern about a manufactured crisis about the impending expiration of the highway bill which must be reauthorized by july 31. i come to speak to another manufactured crisis. we have to reauthorize the export-import bank by june 30 or face the loss of its support for vital jobs in our economy that will happen with its expiration. i'm a big advocate for manufacturing here in the senate and in my home state of delaware but i'm not a big fan of manufactured crises. and both of these are unneeded, self-inflicted wounds that are going to create further drag on our economic recovery. i think we can and should find ways to work together across the aisle to reauthorize the export-import bank. for more than 80 years the export-import bank or commonly known as ex-im has served as a

vital tool to help american companies sell goods around the world by making loan guarantees, providing risk insurance and other finance products to american firms at market prices. the bank has helped to ensure that american companies and their workers can compete anywhere in the world and at no cost to the american taxpayer. i'll say that again: at no cost to the american taxpayer. the bank not only pays for itself it actually often runs a surplus. last year a lincoln it returned -- last year a lone it returned $700 million to the u.s. treasury. today the ex-im bank helps american businesses sell $30 million in goods every year and supports more than 150,000 american jobs. the bank is a government agency, however, and even though it costs taxpayer nothing and has an undeniably positive impact on our economy and on job creation, it remains unclear if this congress will be able to come together to reauthorize it by june 30 and keep it running. unfortunately, some of my

colleagues would like to close the bank and are using arguments i think are unfounded and misguided to do so. first, i've heard the ex-im bank is somehow a government giveaway to large politically connected corporations. but the truth is the bank helps companies of many different sizes, large and small. in my home state of delaware, for instance, ex-im bank helped a company i know well, vioghton schweizer. it has companies around the states. at its delaware station it provides galvanizing services for a range of export. it isn't a huge corporation. it has just a few dozen employees in delaware. it is because of ex-im support that it's been able to compete with other countries around the world. in fact, ex-im support helped the firm's delaware location earn the business to galvanize literally hundreds of bridges that were manufactured in pennsylvania and being exported

and sold to africa. business that would have likely gone to competitors overseas without ex-im's help. now, ex-im does also help large corporations export their goods to countries around the world but that support also benefits small- and medium-sized businesses. for example boeing often receives significant is support from the ex-im bank which helps it complete with international airplane manufacturers like airbus. it isn't just boeing that benefits. this is an important point about how modern manufacturing in the integration of the supply chain works. when boeing finishes manufacture of airplanes it doesn't make it all from its own workforce. it buys the majority of the manufactured parts from manufacturers spread throughout the united states. from the brakes on the landing gear to the in-flight entertainment system other companies make those parts and sell them to the boeing finished product. when ex-im helps boeing export a 747, it helps sustain tens of

thousands of jobs for american workers at other smaller companies. i've seen this myself in delaware. although boeing directly employs in delaware just 16 people, the company supports 1,300 jobs with 52 different delaware companies. i'll give you one example. a smallish company polymer technologies which manufacturers and sells thermal technology to boeing. when ex-im opponents argue this is about a few big companies this just isn't true. it also is vital to sustaining and supporting smaller manufacturers who are vital to our community. the next misplaced argument i've heard is that government shouldn't be supporting private companies, period. should not be, as it were, picking winners and losers. even to the support of the free market the point of government is to step in where the private market fails to do so. and that's exactly what ex-im does. when the bank makes a loan to a business it isn't replacing

capital that would otherwise have come from a private bank. it supplements private capital or makes a private bank more inclined to put at risk its own capital through a provision of political risk insurance and much of the time ex-im servetion servetion -- serves as a lender of last resort and provides a loan where a private bank can't or won't. the ex-im barchtion -- bank is picking up where the market leaves offer and helps to level the global playing field. the reality is every single one of our trading partners provides the same type of support for their exports as the ex-im bank does for ours. they are picking winners. they're picking american winners on the global playing field. as fred hochberg, the chairman of ex-im has written ex-im has given $590 billion in loans in guarantees and insurance over its entire history. but chinese institutions, chinese export financing institutions have provided an estimated $670 billion in just

the past two years. in other words mr. president china has done more in just two years to support the financing of their exporters that our export-import bank has done in its entire 80-year history and at no cost to the taxpayer. the bottom line is that american jobs are at stake in this debate and if we fail to keep the doors open to the export-import bank, we'll fail a lot of american workers. every year ex-im supports hundreds of thousands of jobs and shut terg it will put them at risk. in fact, as "the wall street journal" reported just this morning, american companies worry that global competition is -- quote -- "so cut-throat that they'd be forced to move manufacturing overseas to ship american manufacturing jobs out of the united states if the ex-im bank does not remain open." at a time when our economy is continuing to gain steam and americans are going back to work at a clip of 280,000 new jobs announced just last month we need to continue to help american companies compete in

markets around the world. the ex-im bank is central to our competitiveness and our continued strength at home and abroad. and it's critical that we act together to reauthorize it before the end of june. so i urge my colleagues to join this effort to help support american jobs, american manufacturing and the american middle class. mr. president, for more than it 20 years the state partnership program, or s.p.p., has helped the united states to build closer sustained relationships with militaries and nations around the world. and although i will not call it up and make it pending at this moment, i wanted to take a few minutes and speak on the floor today about my amendment number 1474, to the ndaa, an amendment that would significantly strengthen the state partnership program. first established after the fall of the soviet union the state partnership program was created to help countries transition their militaries from the soviet model and enshrine the idea of

civilian control of the military through professional and personal exchanges with our state national guard units. the s.p.p. facilitates cooperation across all aspects of civil-missile affairs and -- civil military affairs and encourages people to people ties at the state level. i've personally seen the benefit of this program at my home state park. i've seen it in far-flung parts of the globe from liberia to senegal and tunesia where state park programs are at work providing training, supports and resources for the militaries of those three nations. the california national guard for example curnlts -- currently has units helping ukraine push back against russian aggression leveling a trusting relationship established in 1993. since its creation it has grown

substantially. today it consists of 68 partnerships between u.s. national guard units and foreign countries with the 69th between kentucky's national guard and the african nation of djibouti have been just been signed. ju beauty is a nation -- djibouti is on the site of continental africa and that program will help strengthen, sustain and reinforce our ongoing and vital sciewrpt partnership with djibouti, a nation sandwiched between somalia and yemen countries in chaos and facing threats from islamic terrorism. that is one example of how the state partnership program helps leverage resources of our national guard. the program has had to be reauthorized every two years so i'm happy this year both the house and senate recognized its value and decided to work together to reauthorize it in their respective national defense authorization act. however, there are a few changes that we can make that would add to making the s.p.p. more

transparent, more efficient and more effective and that's what my amendment would do. first, it would allow the secretary of defense to consolidate the various funding streams for the s.p.p. which right now comes from over a half dozen different accounts scattered across d.o.d. which makes it more difficult to provide meaningful congressional oversight. this amendment would allow the defense secretary to combine these funding sources into one national guard fund to pay for personnel, training, operations and equipment. second, my amendment would allow the national guard to determine its core competencies to help combatant commanders determine how best to leverage the national guard to serve the needs of a partner country. last my amendment would establish clear and enhanced reporting requirements to better track the annual performance of our units and make modifications where needed to enhance the program's effectiveness. critically, this amendment would not increase the program's costs at all. so mr. president this amendment which is based on the state partnership program enhancement act which currently

has nine republican and 12 democratic senators, including myself, senator lindsey graham of south carolina, senator pat leahy of vermont and senator joni ernst of iowa, enjoys broad bipartisan support from a wide range of states whose national guards have participated and benefited from the state partnership program. it's enthuse -- enthusiastically supported by the addadjutant general and i urge my colleagues to support it. with that, i thank the president and i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president i would like to speak this afternoon about a controversial proposal the cybersecurity information sharing act otherwise known as cisa, which was filed yesterday as an amendment to the defense authorization bill. and i want to begin by saying to the senate that i believe tackling this legislation on the defense bill would in my view be a significant mistake. i expect our colleagues are

going to have a wide range of views about this legislation and i hope that the senate can agree that bills as controversial as this one ought to be subject to public debate and an open-ended process not stapled onto unrelated legislation with only a modest amount of discussion. this is particularly true, given the issue of cybersecurity. which is going to have a significant impact on the security and the well-being of the american people, and obviously the consumer rights and the privacy of law-abiding americans. and because it is designed to increase government collection of information from private companies, i'm of the view that

for the senate to have this expansion of collecting so much information about the people of the united states for it to have real legitimacy in the eyes of the public, it's important to have an open debate with votes on amendments from senators who have a wide variety of opinions on the issue of cybersecurity. trying to rush this bill through the senate, in my view, is not going to increase public confidence. so let me be clear about the process, mr. president and talk a bit about the substance of the legislation as well. i believe tacking it onto the defense bill is a flawed process, but i think there are

also significant flaws with the substance of the legislation as well. dozens of independent experts agree that this legislation will have serious consequences and do little to make our nation more secure at a time when cyber threats are very real. the issue of cyber threats requires more than a placebo and this legislation is a band-aid on a gaping wound. i believe the senate, having the time for adequate reflection and amendment, can do better. mr. president, in the beginning i'd like the senate to know just how much controversy and concern this legislation has generated among those who are considered

independent experts on cybersecurity. shortly before the intelligence committee, which i have honored to serve on for more than 14 years, shortly before the committee marked up this legislation, a coalition of nearly 50 organizations and security experts wrote to the members of the intelligence committee expressing serious concerns about the legislation. mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that this letter be entered into the record at this time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: mr. president the signers of the letter expressed very serious concerns about the legislation and were particularly concerned and i quote here, that it would in their words significantly undermine privacy and civil liberties. unfortunately, as the signers of the legislation will report, these concerns were not adequately addressed in the

committee markup. shortly after the committee markup mr. president a group of 65 technologists and cybersecurity professionals wrote to chairman burr and vice chairman feinstein expressing their opposition to this legislation. i would ask unanimous consent that this letter be entered into the record as well, and mr. president, this is a particularly important letter, and you have some of the most distinguished independent experts from across the country whether amazon or cisco stanford university, dartmouth some of the leading experts in the private sector and academia expressing real concerns about this legislation and its house companion. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: thank you mr. president. from their letter, and i wrote -- "we appreciate your interest in making our networks

more secure, but the legislation proposed does not materially further that goal, and at the same time it puts our users' privacy at risk. these bills weaken privacy law without promoting security. we urge you to reject them." mr. president, the reason i want our colleagues to be aware of how these distinguished scientists in silicon valley and literally every corner of the country are so concerned is that the american people want both security and liberty and they understand the two are not mutually exclusive and what this distinguished group of experts has just said, and i quote, is this weakens privacy without promoting security.

and i hope that the senate will review what these experts are saying and along the same lines i would note that the "christian science monitor" recently polled a group of more than 78 high-profile security and privacy experts from across government think tanks and the private sector, with these experts being asked if legislation along the lines of this bill. this bill, mr. president which has been attached to the defense authorization, these experts were asked if this legislation would significantly reduce security breaches. 87% said that it would not. many of them noted a concern i have noted in opposing the legislation, that incentivizing

private companies to share information about security threats is a very worthwhile proposition, a worthwhile thing to do. but they go on to say that bills like this are going to have limited value in that area and would have significant negative consequences. now, many of my colleagues may have some disagreement with some of the dozens and dozens of independent experts that i have just mentioned. some of them may agree with the 13% of those experts who said that this bill will do a lot to reduce security breaches. that's their right and that's what a good senate debate would be all about but what the senate should not do, mr. president, is pretend that this legislation is uncontroversial and try to rush

it through without substantial revisions and the chance for senators on both sides of the aisle to be heard. now, mr. president i think we all understand why some here in the senate would feel that we have just got to move immediately on this issue and in effect be tempted to rush to action here. we've all understood that there have been a number of recent high-profile hats that have drawn attention to the need to improve our nation's cybersecurity, and i don't disagree with the importance of that at all. for example a major company in oregon was hacked by the chinese simply because they were trying to enforce their rights under trade law so this is not some abstract issue mr. president for the people i represent.

we have seen it in my home state. so these hacks high-profile hacks like the one we saw here recently is obviously drawing attention to the need to improve cybersecurity. the recent compromise of a very large amount of office of personnel management data is obviously the latest of these but it's certainly not going to be the last. every single time i read about these kinds of hacks what i do, mr. president, and have a very talented staff from the intelligence committee my own office to assist me, i try to reach out and talk to experts in the field about ways to improve cybersecurity. but that doesn't mean that every single piece of legislation with the word cybersecurity in it is

automatically a good idea that ought to be blessed without revision here in the united states senate. the fact is this particular cybersecurity bill is largely focused on trying to make it more difficult for individuals to be able to take on corporations. i understand why the chamber of commerce likes it so much. they have always been concerned about the rights of the large corporations and sometimes the inevitable is, well, we're concerned about the large corporations. let's make it harder for individuals to be able to get a fair shake in the marketplace. but in my judgment, the actual cybersecurity value of this bill would be very limited and the

consequences for those individuals who are trying to get a fair shake would be quite serious. i'm going to turn in a moment to the substance of the cisa bill to explain why i consider it so problematic and why it's in need of major revisions but first i'm going to take just a few minutes to discuss proposals that i believe would actually make a difference in terms of improving american cybersecurity. first, the most effective way to improve cybersecurity is to ensure that network owners take responsibility for the security of their networks and effectively implement good security practices. this proposal was the

centerpiece of a 2012 bill. it was called the lieberman-collins cybersecurity bill and in my view, mr. president, that legislation was just a few changes away from being good cybersecurity law. unfortunately, the notion of having the government create even voluntary standards for private companies was strongly opposed by the chamber of commerce and the congress has not revisited it since. beyond ensuring that network owners take responsibility and implement good security practices, it's also important to ensure that government agencies do not deliberately weaken security standards. and when you say that, mr. president, because i know the president of the senate has a great interest, as i do, in

innovation and american competitiveness, it's pretty hard when you say the words the american government is actually thinking as the f.b.i. director has talked about about requiring companies, requiring companies to build weaknesses into their products it's pretty hard to kind of get your arms around this theory. not the less of which is the reason that once the good guys have the keys, the bad guys will also have the keys, which will facilitate cyber hacking. so i have been skeptical of these statements from senior f.b.i. officials suggesting that u.s. hardware and software companies should be required, as i would characterize it, to weaken the security of their products. in my view because encryption

and other advanced security measures are a key part, a key component of actually improving cybersecurity. so i was pleased to see that in the other body just last week a new amendment from representatives massey and lofgren to prevent the government from deliberately weakening encryption standards was voted on and i'm very hopeful that the senate will eventually follow suit and, in fact, i offered that concept mr. president, in the intelligence committee and regrettably, it did not pass. now, with regard to government-held data, it's absolutely imperative that federal agencies receive the funding and expertise they need to develop and implement strong network security programs and to ensure that they have the

technical and administrative controls in place to combat a wide range of cybersecurity threats. and i also believe our government needs to be in a stronger position to recruit and retain a capable federal associate work force -- cybersecurity work force by ensuring cybersecurity professionals can find opportunities in government that are as rewarding as those in the private sector. and in order to ensure there are enough professionsals to fill positions in both the private sector and the government, it's obvious there is going to need to be an investment in the education of the next generation of cybersecurity leaders. i'd also like to note as we talk about responsible approaches to deal with these cyber issues, i

consider the consumer privacy protection act a piece of legislation initiated by senator leahy, to be another step in the right direction. this creates a comprehensive approach to data security by requiring companies to build a cybersecurity program that can defend against cyber attacks. it also protects information not just name or financial account information but also online user names and passwords, information about a person's geeo location and access to private digital photographs and videos. unlike cisa, mr. president this legislation would in my view provide real tools to address the kind of recent cyber attacks we've seen in the news like the celebrity photo hack. unlike cisa, it would also empower individuals by requiring companies to notify consumers if their information has been lost

and protect the rights offered under some state laws for consumers to sue in the event of a privacy incident. the consumer privacy protection act in my view is the kind of responsible, thoughtful approach to cybersecurity which is again legislation that will help us get an added measure of security and public protection while at the same time protecting the individual liberties of our people and their privacy. finally, in my judgment our country needs to be willing to impose consequences on foreign entities that attempt to hack in to american networks and steal large quantities of valuable data. these hacks are underlining our national security, our economic competitiveness and the personal privacy of huge numbers of americans. these consequences should draw

on the full range of american power, depending on the nature of the hack, and the entity responsible. it would be a failure of american imagination to say the only way to respond to foreign hacking is to have our military intelligence agencies hack back as the concept has been known at the parties responsible. we are the most powerful country in the world and our government has a wide variety of tools at its disposal including economic sanctions, law enforcement and multilateral diplomacy and building a multifaceted strategy to deter foreign hacking is going to require that all those kinds of tools i have mentioned by way of articulateing responsible steps to deal with cybersecurity, steps that protect both our security and liberty, all of those tools are ones you would have to draw on.

now, having laid out ways in my view mr. president that the senate on a bipartisan basis can improve cybersecurity, i want to turn to the proposal in detail that is now in front of the senate. as i've said, i believe it makes sense to encourage private companies to share information about cybersecurity threats. so cyber is a problem the question of sharing information can be useful, but it is also vital that information sharing not be bereft of privacy protections, private protections for law-abiding americans. cybersecurity a problem information sharing a plus, but let's make no mistake about it,

an information sharing bill that lacks privacy protections really isn't a cybersecurity bill. it's a surveillance bill. and that's what has been one of my major concerns about this legislation. the legislation in front of the senate. we talked about the flaws in the process, but substantively if you have an information sharing bill that lacks adequate privacy protections, it is a surveillance bill by another name. when the senate intelligence committee voted on the cisa bill i opposed it, and i opposed it because i believe it's insufficient privacy protections will lead to large volumes of americans' personal information personal

information from law-abiding americans, americans who have done nothing wrong that they will be faced with the prospect that their information is shared with the government even when that information is not needed for cybersecurity. when i say personal information, i'm talking about the contents of emails financial information and what amounts to any data at all that is stored electronically. now, my colleagues, some of them have stressed that companies will have a choice about whether or not to participate in this kind of information-sharing part of the legislation. that's true. but while corporations will have a choice about whether or not to participate, they will be able to do so without the knowledge

or consent of their customers and they will receive broad liability protections when they do so. the cisa bill as written trumps all federal privacy laws. furthermore once this information is shared with the government government agencies would be permitted to use it for a wide variety of purposes unrelated to cybersecurity. and the bill creates what i consider to be a double standard really a bizarre double standard in that private information that is shared about individuals can be used for a variety of noncybersecurity purposes, including law enforcement action against these individuals, but information about the companies supplying that information generally may

not be used to police those companies. i will tell tell you you i think that's pretty hard to explain at a town hall meeting in virtually any corner of america because i believe it's wrong to say that the privacy rights of corporations matter minor the privacy rights of individual americans. now, i expect that some colleagues will say it's not their intent to authorize this excessively broad collection, and the argument will be that this is just legislation to encourage companies to share information about actual cybersecurity threats such as lines of malicious code and signatures of hostile cyber actors. again, i would say to colleagues that i am all for encouraging companies to share

information about genuine security threats but if you read the language that is now before the senate in the cybersecurity bill, the language of that bill is much more broad than just sharing information about genuine security threats. if senators want to pass a bill based on real cybersecurity threats and has real protection for americans' privacy, the senate should add language specifying that companies should only provide the government with individuals' personal information if it's necessary to describe a cybersecurity threat. that does not seem to me, mr. president, to be an unreasonable protection for the privacy of americans that the senate would adopt language receiving that the companies

provide the government with individuals -- with personal information if it's necessary to describe the threat. it's pretty obvious i would say to the distinguished presiding officer of the senate to a town hall meeting. if it's related to a cybersecurity threat then the government would provide individuals personal information. but this would discourage companies from unnecessarily sharing large amounts of their customers' private information with the government. unfortunately, the cybersecurity bill in front of the senate now takes the opposite approach. it only requires companies to withhold information that is known at the time of sharing to be personal information unrelated to cybersecurity. this information will clearly discourage companies from closely reviewing the

information that they share and will lead to a much greater amount of americans' personal information being transferred needlessly to government agencies. so i hope that here in the senate there will be an opportunity to carefully consider the potential consequences of this legislation before voting to rush it through by an expedited process. i've said here several times cybersecurity is a real problem and policymakers are going to have to deal with it. in fact, i'll go so far as to say, mr. president that the issue of cybersecurity is going to be ongoing an enduring challenge of the digital age. it's my view that every senator who serves today in this body can expect to deal with

cybersecurity questions for the rest of their career in public service. voting to rush a bill through, however, is not going to make this problem somehow go away, and it will have real consequences for our constituents for years to come and in particular, mr. president, will not make us safer and will jeopardize the rights of individual americans. now, before i wrap up mr. president, i believe it's important and i have an obligation to draw my colleagues' attention to one final issue. as of this afternoon there is a secret justice department legal opinion that is of clear relevance to this debate that continues to be withheld from the public. this opinion remains classified so senate rules prohibit me from describing it in detail, but i can say that

it interprets common commercial service agreements and that in my judgment it is inconsistent with the public's understanding of the law. so this gets back, mr. president, to a question i've talked about here on the floor often which is secret law. when the public reads one thing and there is a secret interpretation that goes in another direction and it contributes to the public's cynicism about washington. now, as always, i certainly see it as my job to say colleagues can decide whether or not to take my counsel but i believe that any senator who votes for this legislation without reading this secret justice department legal opinion that i've referred to is voting without a full understanding of the relevant legal landscape. if senators do not understand

how these common commercial service agreements have been interpreted by the executive branch then it will be harder foursenatorfor the snoot senate to have a debate on the cybersecurity legislation. i have repeatedly asked the justice department to withdraw this opinion and to make it public so that anyone who is party to one of these commercial service agreements can decide whether their agreement ought to be revised. the justice department has chosen to do neither of these things i've suggested. in public testimony before the senate intelligence committee the deputy head of the justice department's office of legal counsel told me that she would personally wouldn't rely on this opinion today understand u.a.e. -- and i appreciate her view. i believe that senators should be concerned about other government officials choosing to rely on it, choosing to rely on

it at any time. in my judgment, that is a very clear instance of the government developing what is essentially secret law law that is at variance with what you read if you're in a coffee shop in arkansas or utah or anywhere else. and the relate city, as i've -- and the reality is, as i've said often on the floor mr. president, operations always have to be secret. sources and methods -- chairman hatch remembers this from his service on the intelligence committee. operations always have to be secret but the law ought to be public because that's how the american people have confidence in how we make decisions in our republic. and i'll close mr. president by saying that it's quite obvious at this point that i have significant reservations about the cybersecurity bill.

i believe that a number of senators are going to share these concerns. i'll let them speak for themselves although i believe senator leahy's strong statement yesterday will was certainly on point. yet i will also say even to the colleagues here who are inclined to sphroart this vote for this bill, i hope all senators will think about whether this is an appropriate process for this sort of legislation. i've already said i believe that senators here are going to be dealing with cybersecurity questions for the rest of their time in public service because in the digital age i think we are going to see a constant evolution in this field with respect to these threats in both the technical and political concerns that are raised by them. so should the senate really be rushing a bill like this through

by tacking it onto an unrelated defense measure? is this the best way to show once again to the american people that security and liberty are not mutually exclusive that it's possible to do both? if senators share the concerns i've raised, i hope that they will oppose the cybersecurity amendment, if it is brought up for a vote on the defense bill. i hope that senators here will support this issue being brought to the floor under the different process, a process that involves regular order so that ever senator here on both sides of the aisle would have an opportunity to make the revisions that i believe it needs and offer their own ideas. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor.

mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: senator hatch. mr. hatch: mr. president as the house of representatives moves closer to a vote on the senate-passed legislation to renew trade promotion authority i want to take a few minutes to talk about the links between our nation's trade policy, foreign policy and national security. whjwhether it's russia's aggression toward the ukraine civil wars in the middle east, or inform proliferation, the world faces a number of challenges impacting the geopolitical landscape. in all of this the question we have to consider is, going forward, what role will the u.s. play? are we going to lead or are we going to follow? make no mistake the path we take on international trade will say a lot about how we plan to answer that question. consider a few facts: in the next few years china will pass the u.s. has the world's largest economy.

it is already the largest -- the world's largest exporting country. china is continually seeking to expand its influence in order to dictate the terms of international trade particularly in places like sub-saharan africa and latin america. in other words mr. president when we're talking about trade and the possibility of the u.s. retreating from the international marketplace china is the proverbial 800-pound gorilla in the room. any ground recede in leading the world on trade is more likely than not ground ceded to china. i've heard many people, including members of congress, express their concerns about china, both strategically and economically, and rightfully so. after all when it comes to trade, china has constantly shown a disregard for international norms and standards. however, many of those same people who talk most about the

threat posed by china have expressed opposition to t.p.a., the trade promotion authority bill and to the trans-pacific partnership, or t.p.p. this is puzzling and reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the senate t.p.a. bill and free trade in general. if we're serious about keeping china and its growing economic and political influence in check, getting a strong t.p.p. agreement that advances u.s. interests should be a top priority. in addition, if we want to eventually convince china to change their harmful practices a high-standard t.p.p. agreement would naturally be a big step in the right direction. free trade agreements like t.p.p. if done correctly should provide new rules for trade in the 21st century. they should set modern standards for economic liberalization and integration, including the

protection of foreign investments and intellectual property rights and the marginalization of state-owned enterprises. we need to be setting the standards and righting the rules on trade so workers innovators researchers and job creators can fairly compete in the global market. if we don't lead, if we sit on the sidelines americans will be competing on an imbalanced playing field with rules designed specifically to disadvantageous. given the t.p.p. countries comprise 40% of world's economy it is vital this we improve our ability to compete in that region. if t.p.p. fails, we will lose influence in one of the most economically dynamic and strategic regions of the world. and any leadership vacuum left by the u.s. will almost certainly be filled by someone else and in this case most likely china.

don't just take my word for it. congress recently received a letter from 17 former secretaries of defense and retired military leaders including collin powell, leon panetta and donald rumsfeld. in that letter, these leaders said "we write to express our strongest possible support for enactment of trade promotion authority legislation, which is critical to the successful conclusion of two vital agreements the trans-pacific partnership, t.p.p., and the trans-atlantic trade and investmentinvestment partnership ttip. t.p.p. will shape an economic dynamic that will link the united states with one of the world's most vibrant and dynamic regions. if however we fail to move forward with t.p.p., asian economies will almost certainly develop alopping a china-centric model.

in fact, comien is already -- china is already pursuing an alternative regional free trade initiative. t.p.p. combined with ttip, would allow the united states and our closest allies to help shape the rules and standards for global trade. the concerns outlined in this letter went beyond china. the letter continues "the stakes are clear. there are tremendous strategic benefits to t.p.p. and ttip. and there would be harmful strategic consequences if we fail to secure these agreements. in both asia-pacific and the atlantic it our asian partners will doubt our resolve and inevitably look to other partners. america's prestige and leadership are on the line. with t.p.p. originating in the bush administration, these agreements are fundamentally

bipartisan in nature and squarely in our national security interest. it is vitally important that we seize the new strategic opportunities these agreements offer our nation." unquote. when 1 17 former secretaries of defense, admirals, and generals who served under both democratic and republican administrations join together with such a strong message, they probably have a point. and congress had better listen closely. many people, including a number of our colleagues here in congress continually argue that one of the best uses of american power would be to better promote human rights and democracy in developing countries and increase ourest our efforts at alleviating poverty. i don't necessarily disagree with that sentiment. indeed while there are different opinions about how we can best accomplish these goals i think most of us here in congress in both the senate and the house agree with the basic

premise that we should continually be working to expand our influence and advance our values particularly in the developing world. history has demonstrated that the best way to accomplish these objectives is to increase u.s. trade with these countries. indeed if we want to export the benefits of american exceptionalism work ethic and democracy, a freer exchange of goods is the absolutely best way to do it. trade, mr. president is an effective exercise of america's economic power and influence. trade is how you spread capitalism and encourage other countries to open their economies. trade is how you export american values in the developing world. and, most importantly, trade is how you counter the growing influence of countries like china in the world economy. the stakes are high. the importance of t.p.p. and other trade agreements to our

strategic and security interests is obvious. mr. president, it's obvious. and given that reality the importance of t.p.a. should be just as obvious. put simply, without t.p.a., there is no t.p.p. that's just a fact. sure technically speaking, t.p.a. is not required to complete negotiations send a the agreement to congress. but technicalities aside that route is unlikely to yield desirableresults both in terms of the substance and process. japan and canada, two of our largest trading partners in the t.p.p. have both stated that they are reluctant to bring their final offers to the table until congress provides the administration with t.p.a. trade promotion authority ensures our partners that if they reach an agreement it won't be unraveled when sent to

congress for approval. this allows our negotiators to get the best deal possible on both sides. but especially our negotiators. t.p.a. also ensures that congress has a meaningful role in crafting the specifics of the agreement by setting objectives, mandating transparency, and requiring periodic up-dates. and under the senate-passed bill congress will have more authority than ever to review and respond to the administration on individual trade agreements. long story short mr. president t.p.a. is absolutely necessary for advancing u.s. interests abroad and protecting the opportunities for millions of americans to earn and compete for our livelihood in an increasingly global trade environment. with the house t.p.a. vote set to take place in a matter of days i hope our colleagues in the other chamber will recognize the strategic and economic

realities we face as a country and vote to advance our nation's interests and security. i am confident that most of them will make the right choice and it will be good for america, as well as them. i'd like to take a few minutes to talk about another matter of great importance, not just to me but to everybody. last year after the midterm elections the obama administration quietly and without much fanfare proposed a far-reaching rule that would overturn bed rao rock principles of child support enforcement and reform. chief among them, parents should be directly responsible for their children. this is the latest attempt on the part of the obama administration to bypass congress in order to enact policies through executive fiat. sadly, it wasn't even the first time this administration has tried to gut welfare reform. indeed, we all remember a few years back when the administration granted itself

the unprecedented authority to wave critical welfare work requirements. put simply, this latest rule would make it easier for noncustodial parents to evade paying child support. it would undermine a key feature of welfare reform which is that single mothers can avoid welfare if fathers comply with child support orders. i am fundamentally opposed to policies that allow parents to abdicate their responsibilities which in turn results in more families having to go on welfare. i think most americans would agree with me. that is why i joined by senator cornyn and house ways and means committee chairman paul ryan, have introduced legislation that would prevent the obama administration from bypassing congress in yet another attempt to subvert key features of welfare reform. i regret that we must take this action. in the past members of congress have generally been able to find

common ground and work on a bipartisan basis to address issues relating to child support. in fact, congress recently passed and the president recently signed legislation that made improvements to child support enforcement policies. in 2013, the senate finance committee reported a serious -- a series of ambitious proposals related to child support enforcement. at that time we requested input on these proposals from the obama administration. at no time did administration officials indicate that the department of health and human services was quietly working to amass a massive overhaul of child support enforcement much less that it was planning on doing so without the help or input of congress. it's important to note that this secretive preparation only came to light after the recent elections. that suggests to me that the administration does not have faith that its proposal can

withstand public scrutiny and that they have no interest in making a full and transparent justification for the policies they are trying to ram through. truth be told, chairman ryan and i have introduced our legislation more out of sorrow than anger. for many months our offices attempted to work out an equitable arrangement with the obama administration. we tried to convince h.h.s. to withdraw the problematic features of the rule, and in exchange we would agree to engage in a substantive productive discussion on how to move forward with improvements to child support enforcement. i firmly believe that there is room for common ground. in fact, there are a number of features of the administration's proposed rule that can generate bipartisan support. any workable solution would have to include the full participation and ultimate consent of the legislative branch. any changes to the law would have to go through congress and

not simply be dictated by the administration. so mr. president chairman ryan and i will do all we can to get our bill through congress and present it to the president. if we're successful, i hope he will sign it and commit to working with us in the future to advance reforms to child support enforcement. i stand ready to work with the administration and any of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the capitol to achieve this goal. with that, mr. president i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. 4 quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. ayotte: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. ms. ayotte: mr. president are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. ms. ayotte: i would ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. ayotte: thank you mr. president. mr. president, on behalf of senator kirk, i send an amendment to the desk to the text proposed to be stricken by amendment number 1463. the clerk: the senator from new

hampshire, ms. ayotte, for mr. kirk proposes an amendment numbered 1986 to the language proposed to be stricken by amendment numbered 1463. ms. ayotte: i would ask unanimous consent that the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. ayotte: thank you mr. president. i rise today to talk about an important amendment that was offered by senator kirk, which i am a cosponsor of, and that is the reauthorization of the export-import bank. i can tell you that in my home state of new hampshire, -- in fact on monday, i was at a roundtable at g.e. aviation in my state. g.e. aviation has over 700 jobs in the state of new hampshire. they are building a new facility there. the export-import bank provides a company like g.e. opportunity to obtain financing to export

its products that are manufactured in the united states of america and new hampshire to other countries overseas so increasing the opportunity for american manufacturing jobs, and at that company on monday, they invited a lot of their suppliers and small businesses who also have either used ex-im financing or are suppliers for the larger companies that use ex-im financing. and in fact some of the companies that were around the table that have used ex-im financing in new hampshire boyle energy in concord. in fact, mike boyle, who is the c.e.o. of boyle energy, has been able to use ex-im financing to grow new hampshire jobs, and he has a vision for a new plant in merrimack, new hampshire that he is ready to expand, and if he can get this financing he's going to be selling more of his

great products overseas, creating more jobs in new hampshire, and yet this bank expires at the end of june. this is a very, very important tool for american businesses, and this is one where i wish i had this problem with every program in washington. the bank actually returns money to the treasury, and it creates american jobs. the reason that this type of financing is available is because of the risk that is often taken exporting products where there aren't commercial loans always available. the ex-im bank and its ability to allow financing for our businesses in america is there and in fact other countries around the world have programs like this that are much more extensive. without the ex-im bank, there is not a level playing field for our american companies who want to manufacture in the united

states of america to be able to have access to this financing that will allow them to create american jobs. also around that table on monday a g. -- at g.e. aviation was goss manufacturing. they manufacture great printing presses in new hampshire. we're very proud of them. they have also been able to use ex-im financing. and if that financing doesn't go through, we heard from a representative of goss that in fact they could lose up to 40 jobs in my home state of new hampshire. so it's important that we reauthorize this bank. i want to thank the senator from illinois for offering this amendment to reauthorize the ex-im bank so that our companies here in the united states of america can manufacture here, sell to consumers around the world, have access to this financing, and in fact in new hampshire there has been about 36 companies many of them small

companies that have been able over the last several years to use ex-im financing to create new hampshire jobs. so mr. president, this is about jobs in the united states of america. this is about competing. we recently had the t.p.a., trade promotion authority on this floor to expand opportunities for trade. well, this goes hand in hand with that so that our companies have access to this financing to create jobs here and return money to the treasury. i wish we could say that about every government program that it returns money to the treasury. and actually the default rate for ex-im is lower than commercial loans. so i'm hopeful mr. president that senator kirk's amendment will get a vote on this senate floor, that we can get this reauthorized before the expiration date at the end of this month we can continue to allow this financing for american businesses to continue to sell their products to build them here, to sell them overseas and to create american jobs,

because that's what this type of financing allows our businesses to do. this is very important when we think about making sure that we remain competitive that we have more jobs here, and that we can continue to sell our great products built here in the united states of america around the world. so mr. president, i am very honored to support this amendment. i hope that we will get a vote on this amendment on the defense authorization or get a vote and make sure that we have this passed before the end of the year -- excuse me, before the end of this month and this bank expires so that we can have that continuity in this important financing mechanisms for our businesses here in this country. in addition to some of the businesses that were around the table on monday, i also want to mention g.k.n. aerospace from charleston who is a smaller business who had a small -- a

larger business but with a smaller footprint in new hampshire, who has been able to also export and create jobs in new hampshire and across the country, and in addition to that you know, we were so glad. i've heard from other businesses in new hampshire that have been able to rely on this important important financing mechanism. so i'm very, very glad to support senator kirk's amendment, and with that, i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. nelson: thank you mr. president. mr. president, i have just learned that the c.j.s. subcommittee of the appropriation committee reported a bill out that cut a substantial cut in the request for commercial crew in order for

us to be able to have americans flying on american rockets to and from the international space station instead of having to rely on the russian soyuz which we buy and have been buying those ever since we shut down the space shuttle at something like $60 million to $70 million a passenger going up to the space station. now, the whole idea was that since we've cooperated with the russians in building this space station, that we would both have the means of transportation to get up there. we do have the means of transportation of getting since we shut down the space shuttle cargo to and from the space

station, but we are in the process of a competition between several companies especially those that have been selected in the competition by nasa are boeing and spacex, and each of those have been granted money to develop all of the redundancies and safety and escape systems in their spacecraft capsule in orde order to make it safe for americans to go to and from the international space station. now, i can tell you that the average american on the street their image of our space program is one that when the space shuttle shut down in 2011, they think the space program's over,

when, in fact, it's really just beginning and we're going to mars in the decade of the 2030's. well, that's the whole point of us being able to rely on our own spacecraft and our own rockets instead of relying on the russians. and what if this cut -- is sustained, and this is a cut from a request of $1.24 billion for this competition for making american rockets safe and creating the spacecraft to take americans to the space station it's been cut to $900 million if that cut in the subcommittee is sustained in the full committee and ultimately in the final

appropriation bill, it's going to delay us from being able to launch americans on american rockets instead of 2017, just two years from now it will delay us another four years that's four more years of relying on the russians. now, i know there are a bunch of senators around here that don't like the fact of the aggressiveness of vladimir putin well, this is one way to wean ourselves from having to depend on them. and final comment on this subject mr. president -- and that is the money that supposedly is being cut which is just a little over $300 million we would lose that in still paying that money

to the russians to fly an additional two years. we need to wake up to what's happening. senator milulski will be offering an amendment to the full appropriations committee to restore that cut and i hope senators will understand all the nuances and support senator mikulski. mr. president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. kirk: mr. president i seek to speak on my amendment on behalf of the export-import bank to this bill. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. kirk: i'd like to say the export-import bank is set to expire this year on june 30. it allows thousands of american companies to advance their technology overseas without these loans many american jobs would be ceded to china or europe. 200,000 american workers now depend on ex-im plus 46,000 in my home state of illinois, they work for these companies and

depend on export-import backing to make it. some people are looking to cut this a government agency, but it's not it makes in the last three years it has earned the u.s. treasury over $3 billion. i have -- will be offering the kirk-heitkamp amendment to keep this bank alive. i want to thank senators blunt and cantwell and manchin for defending these american jobs. with that i would yield back. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: i rise to speak about the national defense authorization act. this is legislation that we are currently considering and we need to pass. it is important for our military and it's important for the american people. i've offered a number of amendments and i rise to speak

about three of those amendments at this point. the first is s. 1483 which involves r.p.a. flight training. essentially s. 1483 would instruct the air force to consider allowing private contractors to provide the air force with training for remotely piloted aircraft or r.p.a.'s. these are the vehicles used in unmanned aerial systems commonly called u.a.s. currently the air force is training pilots for r.p.a.'s, remotely piloted aircraft, within the service itself. but there are some very skilled private contractors, in fact, the people who make unmanned aircraft that could be doing high quality training for them as well, particularly in concert with our universities that provide aviation training. right now the air force faces a real challenge in training a sufficient number of unmanned

aircraft pilots to meet operational demand. specifically, this amendment directs the air force to evaluate the use of private contractors private contractor facilities equipment and trainers to increase the number of qualified pilots for r.p.a. missions. it requires the air force to detail various aspects of their shortfalls in manning r.p.a.'s, authorized number of personnel assigned to the missions and the identification and assessment of actions to address that shortfall. in this rapidly growing era of unmanned technology, it makes sense for the military to partner with companies and universities that have the expertise to provide the critical training that the military needs. it is cost-effective, it is efficient, and it is good for the military and our country. right now the demand for unmanned aerial systems is so strong worldwide that the air force has all its pilots flying

the missions. that doesn't give them the resources the pilots to train more pilots to fly unmanned aerial systems. so this is a way we can help air force train up these new pilots with the very contractors that make things like global hawk and predator and our universities that provide aviation training, i think it would be of great benefit and assistance to the air force. the second amendment that i want to talk about is s. 1484. this one seeks to give the air national guard units a larger role in the global hawk unmanned aerial systems mission. specifically this measure directs air force to determine the feasibility of partnering the air national guard with active duty air force to operate and maintain global hawk. the r.t. 4 global hawk including block 20, 30, and 40 variance is the air force's high altitude

long endurance aircraft for intelligence, surveillance and recon instance. they are currently operated and maintained only by active duty forces with the air national guard could be providing a valuable adjunct to the air force's regular personnel if we allow them to do that. north dakota air national guard for example already operates and maintains the mq-1 predator and does it exceptionally well. they and units like them are clearly capable of taking on part of the global hawk mission in association with their active duty counterparts. this amendment would further the joint operations which have been a major initiative of all of the armed services, the guard and the reserves, in recent years and they've done a tremendous job on jointness and it's made our military stronger and more effective and more responsive.

we need to continue to build on that joint operation. that's exactly what this amendment does. the third amendment that i would like to discuss is s. 1485, it is the nuclear -- it regards the nuclear force improvement program. this amendment seeks to fortify the nuclear force improvement program or nfip which i believe is crucial to our national security. both now and well into the future. the reality is we're facing an increasingly nuclearized future. nations like iran, north korea and others have or are developing nuclear weapons. that means we must maintain a credible decisive nuclear deterrent. that's what the nuclear force improvement program is all about. in 2014, the air force

initiated the program to bolster and enhance its nuclear missions including the intercontinental ballistic missile icbm and nuclear-capable bomber missions. the program involves a wide range of efforts to improve morale update facilities and equipment and reinvigorate the career fields in the air force. we need to continue to invest in and build this program. specifically, my amendment provides the nuclear mission should be a top priority for the department of defense and the air force. that congress should support investments which sustain progress made under the nuclear force improvement program that the force should regularly inform congress on the program's progress and any additional requirements it may identify and that future air force budgets should reflect the importance of the nuclear mission and the need to support personnel performing the nuclear mission.

bottom line is the men and women assigned to the nuclear mission in the u.s. air force are doing incredibly important work every day for the security of our country and we need to do all we can to support them. we need to provide them with the support they deserve so they can continue to do the job we ask them to do and do it at the level that our security requires. the nuclear force improvement program is a success, and the air force needs to extend it into the future and continue to shore up the foundations of our nuclear deterrent which is itself at the foundation of nuclear -- of national security. in conclusion, mr. president let me say that working on legislation as essential as the defense of our nation is and should be a bipartisan effort. the senate armed services committee passed this bill out of committee with a bipartisan vote of 22-4.

let's come together to do this for the american people and the men and women and families who have undertaken the great and noble effort to protect our country. i want to thank both the chairman of the armed services committee and the ranking member for their hard work, for their bipartisanship and again offer my support as we work to pass this vitally important legislation for our military and for this great country. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. donnelly: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. donnelly: mr. president i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. donnelly: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i want to tell you a little bit about gregg

keesling a dad and small business owner from indianapolis. i have gotten to know gregg over the past few years because gregg an his wife janet lost their son chancellor to suicide while chancellor was serving in iraq in 2009. joining a club, he often says, he doesn't want anyone else to join. this is gregg. this is chancellor. this is chancellor again on duty. and this is the memorial they had for chancellor. gregg recently said that he sees the invisible wounds wounds borne by our men and women in uniform as "one of the greatest challenges our country faces." and he noted "we're going to face this challenge for many years to come." gregg is right. we've lost more troops to suicide than in combat each of the past three years.

we lost more than 400 active duty guard and reserve service members last year alone. it is also estimated we'll lose 22 veterans to suicide every single day. these are preventable deaths. we must do more to get these men and women the mental health care they have earned. we need to remind our troops and veterans, along with our friends and family, that it's okay to share the burden of your personal struggles. it's a sign of strength to seek help. our service members veterans and their families sacrifice for us so we must do everything possible to support them. last year we passed and the president signed into law the jakejacobsexton military prevention

sue idea act. for the first time it required a mental health assessment for all service members whether they are active, guard or reserve. just like physical health, mental health is an essential piece of military readiness. we need to have an attitude of all-in toward providing support for mental health challenges and also for the day-to-day struggles we know contribute to suicide risk. financial problems, relationship issues things that are never made easier by military life. the sexton act was named for a member of the indiana national guard who took his own life while home on leave from afghanistan in 2009. jeff and barb sexton, jacob's

parents, have been incredible partners in this work. jeff spoke recently about the decision he and his wife made to speak out about military suicide. this is sergeant jake cephal sexton. here he is in his humvee. here he is serving as well. his parents jeff and barb, said -- actually, this was jeff in particular his dad who said, i had three choices. i could crawl into a corner or i could crawl into a bottle or i could stand up and fight. it's not been an easy job but it's something i feel my wife and i have to do. the keeslings and the sextons are courageously telling their stories to help prevent anymore families from going through this nightmare.

congress needs to continue to answer their call. this is an issue we cannot let up on because there's so much more important work to do. this year we're taking the next step in the continuum of care, focusing on improving the quality of and access to mental health care through department of defense providers v.a. providers, and private community providers. this year we introduced the service member and veteran memorial health care package three bills each improves access to quality mental health care for service members and veterans. the care package aims to improve mental health care by focusing on direct huff care providers at -- direct-care providers at d.o.d. and v.a. community providers right in your own town. and the training of physician assistants as mental health providers. i want to thank chairman mccain and senator reed for

working with me to include elements of the care package in the national defense bill. specifically those elements that deal with d.o.d. and care for service members. i'd like to go through the care package provisions in the ndaa briefly and offer two amendments to ensure these provisions support not only service members but also veterans. first, section 716 is based on the first of our care package bills. the community provider readiness recognition act. it's cosponsored by my friend, senator joan knee ernst and it creates a special military-friendly designation for providers who choose to receive training in military culture and the unique needs of service members and military families. providers who receive this designation would be listed in a regularly up-dated online registry allowing service members to search for designated providers in their area.

it's inspired by the star behavioral provider behavioral health network back in indiana their military family research institute built to train providers to better understand military culture and medical treatments. by designating a provider as part of the star behavioral health network it helps service members and their families make informed choices about where to seek care. this can easily be translated on a national scale so that service members, veterans, and their families know which private mental health care providers are well-suited and trained to treat them. second section 713 of the ndaa is drawn from another care package bill, the military and veterans mental health provider assessment act. cosponsored by my friend, senator roger wicker of

mississippi. this legislation requires all d.o.d. primary care and mental health providers that they have received evidence-based training on suicide risk recognition and management and that their training be up-dated to keep pace with changes in mental health care best practices. it also requires d.o.d. to report to congress on the military's current melgt health workforce. the long-term mental health needs of service members and families and how we assure that d.o.d. meets those needs. finally it requires the department of defense to bring us a plan to assess mental health outcomes and d.o.d. care, variations in outcomes across different d.o.d. facilities and barriers to d.o.d. mental health providers. implementing the best clinical care guidelines and other

evidence-based treatments. finally, but including elements from the front-line mental health provider training act cosponsored by my friend senator john boozman from arkansas, the ndaa calls on the department of defense to train physician assistants to specialize in psychiatric care in order to help meet the increasing demand for mental health services among service members and their families. we are also working to extend the same spectrum of care to our veterans and we are working towards a hearing on the corresponding veterans bills for this mental health care package in the months ahead. these are smart bipartisan provisions that address one of the most serious challenges facing our military, our veterans and our country. we must improve the mental

health care at the department of defense and the veterans administration and at private community providers from ellsworth maine; to evansville, indiana; to the shores of california so they are better able to serve our service members, veterans, and their families. it is absolutely essential that we have coordination and continuity for service members and their families as they transition to veteran status. i'll leave you with a couple of brief thoughts from two brave hoosiers i have the privilege to know and have gotten to know well. jeff sexton, jacob's dad put it this way. it's one thing to lose someone you love in the war.

it is a whole other thing to lose them to the war. and greg keesling chancellor's dad, he concluded this: the bottom line is i don't want anybody else to go what my family has gone through. we must act and we must act now before any more families have to experience this loss of suicide. i urge all of my colleagues to support the care package provisions for service members and to later extend them to our veterans who need their help and who need them to stand up for them. thank you, mr. president. i yield back. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. murphy: i ask that we dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: thank you mr. president. i am coming to the floor today to speak on behalf of an amendment that i am offering along with schatz, senator udall, senator blumenthal, senator heinrich, senators tester merkley and baldwin. mr. president, today was announced that president obama is going to be sending another 450 troops to iraq to help

assist in the fight against isil. that will mean that we now have 3,500 troops in position throughout iraq assisting in the battle against isil within those borders. this marks also nearly a year since we have reengaged in military activities in iraq and in syria both with support forces for the iraqis, with training, for those that are fighting in syria and major air operations targeting isil. there i think is broad bipartisan consensus here that the united states needs to take the fight to this enemy an enemy that is seeking to occupy an enormous amount of territory in a very dangerous region from which it can plot attacks against the united states. but i also think that there is bipartisan agreement that we

should do our constitutional duty that we should authorize that war against isil, and my hope is that the foreign relations committee of which i am a member, which you are a member the presiding officer is will have that debate in the upcoming months. but given that we are authorizing hundreds of millions of dollars in this bill in order to take the fight to isil, i think it makes sense to have some commonsense limitations on the use of that money that are in keeping with the very public promises that the president has made. president obama has stated very clearly that he does not think that it is a wise strategy to reinsert major combat troop operations into the middle east. i agree with him. i think many of us agree with him. there is nothing about the last ten years of american occupation

in iraq that tells us that u.s. troops inside iraq can have the effect of killing more terrorists than are created in part through the recruitment benefit of major u.s. combat operations. so our amendment that we're offering here today is a fairly simple one. it would prohibit the use of major combat -- of large numbers of combat troops in the fight against isil with certain commonsense exceptions, an exception for rescue operations, an exception for intelligence gathering exercises an exception for special operations in and throughout the region, special operations like the one that we use to kill a high-ranking isis commander just within the last several weeks.

but we think it's important that congress weigh in here and state what we believe to be the desire and imperative of our constituents, that we learn about the mistakes from the iraq war, that we don't repeat them by inserting thousands of american ground troops back into iraq or perhaps syria. isis was created first and foremost primarily by a political vacuum inside iraq, not a military vacuum, and we need to acknowledge that any strategy to ultimately defeat isil as we are all committed to has to first and foremost have a realistic political strategy on the ground to divorce sunni populations from this death cult that is isil. sunni grievances grew throughout

nouri al-maliki's reign. they were denied an equity share of oil revenues, they were excluded from jobs, there were real atrocities committed against sunni communities mass torture, exclusion from jobs, killings. if we don't have an iraqi government that is committed toward being inclusive of sunni populations, there is no amount of american ground troops on the ground that can heal those divisions, and in fact what we know about the iraq war is that major american combat operations on the ground in iraq have an effect of exacerbating those divisions rather than healing them. they give space for people like maliki to try to marginalize these populations. they increase suffering on the ground especially for these populations that aren't represented effectively within the reigning shiite government in baghdad. and so if we really want to

learn lessons from the past, then let's take president obama at his word. let's include in the ndaa a commonsense limitation with exceptions, with respect to the deployment of major ground operations inside iraq. now, there are some people who will say that this isn't the role of congress, and i will just state for the record that there are a litany of examples in the past in which congress has placed commonsense limitations on our authorizations for military force, and in fact the president in submitting a proposed aumf to the foreign relations committee several months ago in fact included in that authorization of military force a limitation on ground forces. and so this would be entirely consistent with the history of this body, but also with the proposal that the president has made. i know have having visited our

troops in afghanistan and in afghanistan that it is easy for us to believe that there is no mission that u.s. soldiers can't take on, that their capability, that their bravery that their courage, that their adaptability knows no bounds. and they have done admiral work inside iraq over the course of the last ten years. but what we know is that those troops inside iraq also made iraq what our own intelligence community called the cause celebre for the international terrorist movement, drawing in thousands of would-be terrorists to fight the americans. what we know is that the isis that we are fighting today is a follow-on organization from iraq which was created because of the american invasion and occupation maybe not in whole but certainly is the primary influencer. so we hope to be able to have a

full debate on an authorization of military force but with the inability to move that piece of legislation through the foreign relations committee we think it's proper on the ndaa to hold the president at his word place a commonsense limitation on the use of ground troops and learn from the mistakes of the last ten years inside iraq. i'd yield the floor. i yield the floor mr. president.

the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. kirk: mr. president i would ask this chamber to reject the motion to table my amendment which put forward reforms for the export-import bank. i would say to members that this is going to be a key scored vote by the chamber of commerce and the national association of manufacturers, that without my amendment you would not have the reforms to make sure that ex-im works at least 25% of its portfolio with small business. i would urge members to vote no on the motion to table my amendment by mr. shelby. i understand it's coming up. this is the key test vote export-import bank, and with a good bipartisan vote, i would think we would have people supporting the kirk-heitkamp-blunt-graham reform legislation for ex-im. with that, i would yield back,

mr. chairman. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: thank you. i make a few brief comments -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. graham: i ask unanimous consent to terminate the quorum call. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. graham: very briefly senator ayotte and kirk's amendment is coming up. there is a motion to table. what we're trying to do here is

basically show support for the ex-im bank, which is due to expire in june. we're trying to find a vehicle that must be -- a must-pass piece of legislation to keep the bank afloat. i think it's very important to the american economy that american manufacturers not be disadvantaged. the ex-im bank makes money for the american taxpayer. china's ex-im bank is larger than france, germany the united states and england combined. what does this mean to the average person when a product's made in the united states, sold into the developing world without the ex-im financing mechanism available to american manufacturers, we're going to lose market share to other countries like china france and germany who produce wide-body jets and other products. 89% of the people who get help from the ex-im bank are small businesses. so this is an attempt to show the investor community and those who are watching this issue that the senate is in support of the bank so i'm urging a no vote on