more work expected on the 2016 defense department programs and policies a bill which contained $612 billion for the pentagon for a vote expected at 11:30 eastern time on anti-torture amendment with more amendments to be considered in the afternoon. senators will break at 12:30 p.m. for their weekly party lunches and returned at 2:15 p.m. you are watching live coverage of the senate here on c-span2. the chaplain: let us pray. sovereign lord, your kingdom cannot be shaken. thank you for inviting us to ask and receive to seek and to find, and knock for doors to be open.

forgive us when we forfeit our blessings because of our failure to ask. remind us that we have not because we ask not. inspire our senators to harness prayer power continuously. may they follow your admonition to pray without ceasing. throughout this day, may they repeatedly ask you for wisdom and guidance. may their fervent prayers make a positive impact on the legislative process.

we pray in your great name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to calendar number 118 h.r. 2685. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky mr. mcconnell moves to proceed to calendar number 118, h.r. 2685, an act making appropriation for the department of defense for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2016, and for other purposes. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to proceed to h.r. 2685 making appropriation for the department of defense for the fiscal year ending september 30 2016, and for

other purposes, signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the readings of the names be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so, mr. president, later this afternoon, the senate will decide whether to advance or filibuster the defense authorization legislation which is before us. senators will take a vote and senators will make a choice. one option is for senators to follow the bipartisan example of the house of representatives and the senate armed services committee, both of which passed defense authorization legislation with bipartisan backing. it means reaching across the aisle to support the men and women who support us every single day. it means voting to transform bureaucratic waste and to crucial investments for brave troops and their families, raises they've earned, quality of life programs they deserve and the kind of medical care and mental health support they should expect when injured on the battlefield or haunted by

its memories at home. it means ensuring our military has the tools it needs to help america navigate a treacherous world beset by an ever-growing array of challenges. it means advancing a bill that contains ideas and priorities from both parties and one that gives president obama the exact level of funding authorization he asked for in his own budget request. it also means endorsing the senate's return to considering defense authorization bills through the regular order allowing real bipartisan debate and real bipartisan amendment process, as we have done this year. as opposed to the bad old days of ramming it through at the last minute. that's one option. voting for cloture voting for a bipartisan bill that's good for our troops and our country. but there's another option, too voting to filibuster, voting to raise the curtain on this truly

bizarre filibuster summer. a strategy we hear democratic leaders boasting about in the press. democrat leaders are apparently so passionate, passionate about dumping more cash into gargantuan d.c. bureaucracies like the i.r.s. that they now seem prepared to block and filibuster the benefits owed to our troops and their families, or even, even shut down the government altogether if they can't get their way. as one newspaper reported this morning -- quote -- "democrats appear eager to return to shut down politics. the minority leader seemed to put it plainly enough the other day -- we're heading for another shutdown, he said. but that can only happen if commonsense democrats allow their party leaders to advance the shutdown-seeking filibuster summer gambit. today is every commonsense democrat's chance to say enough.

this is a bad strategy. today is every commonsense democrat's opportunity to help pull their party back from a senseless path of forcing endless filibusters and a shutdown no one wants but the hard left. that's what they want. because here's what every senator knows deep down -- voting to filibuster would mean allowing democrat leaders to take from every soldier every sailor every marine and every man and woman in the air force the pay raises they have earned so democratic leaders can use it as an ante in the game of shutdown roulette. voting to filibuster would mean allowing democrat leaders to hold our military hostage at a time of unprecedented global threat as part of some partisan ploy to extract extract a few more bucks for washington bureaucrats. i just can't imagine

serious-minded democrats feeling comfortable going along with their leader's plan. it's just too callous. it's just too extreme. so i hope they won't. i hope every one of my colleagues no matter which party they're in, will stand together instead of for bipartisanship instead stand together for bipartisanship for regular order for the idea that we should support the troops who support us. i want to thank chairman mccain for all of his hard work to get us to this point. dea marvelous job working across the aisle to craft a serious defense bill with input and amendments from both sides. the senate, our military and our country stand to benefit immensely from his dedication. so i hope every senator of

goodwill will stand up and vote to advance this bipartisan bill later today. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: i have for many, many years every thursday when we're in session, i have what i call welcome to washington. and i look forward to those thursday mornings at 8:30, visiting with people from nevada and their guests come from other places who want to visit with me and their friends so i enjoy those very much. last thursday, i had a young man named nathaniel. he had been an intern for me and

his family's from nevada. his grandfather is a very famous man by the name of john squire grindall. he is just a good person. the reason i recognize nathaniel, they came back to one of my welcome to washingtons. i called him i said hey nathaniel, come on up here. i said let's show these folks some of your magic tricks. so that's what he would do. i would bring him in and he could do magic tricks. he's now going to law school. his magic tricks aren't as good as they used to be. he hasn't practiced very much. but, mr. president what i have heard my friend, the republican leader talk about today is trying to do some magic tricks. not only on the senate but the country. the defense authorization bill is an important piece of legislation.

we democrats support our troops. no country can dispute that. we are just as patriotic as any republican. my 46 democrats are just as patriotic as the 54 republicans. we support defense just as much as our republican friends do. but we also support the rest of our country. we support the federal bureau of investigation, the justice department. we support u.s. marshals who are now out looking for these two killers who escaped from prison in new york. we support the drug enforcement agency, we support the immigration and naturalization service, social security, v.a. i could go on and on. mr. president, to have a sound secure homeland, we have to make

sure that we take care not only of the pentagon's needs but the needs of the american people. my friend, the republican leader, with a little bit of his magic always throws in the internal revenue service. as if, boy we're doing great things, we're cutting the internal revenue service. mr. president, i'm not here to -- to throw bouquets to the internal revenue service. i am here to say it's an important part of our country. i met with the head of the i.r.s. -- it's been a couple months ago now. he came to say you know, we made it through the tax season and we did a good job but he said during the time that people were trying to file their income tax returns if someone had tried to call the internal revenue service, they wouldn't have gotten an answer. we did not have enough personnel to even answer the phones. is that what we want? do we want people who call

i.n.s. not to be able to answer the phone? and a lot of that is happening now. the federal government is being starved for resources. why? because of the republicans' determination to try some magic. we know that the republicans are not really series about the defense bill. if they were, would they throw on this the imembank as an amendment and move to table their own amendment? of course not. 165,000 people are working today because of export bank. it's an important function of our government. but a large number of the republicans are trying to kill this program as indicated at how unserious they are about doing something about it by focusing on the defense bill, an amendment that they filed and moved to table their own amendment just so they could check off the box.

well, we tried to do something on export-import bank. cybersecurity. mr. president, we are being hacked on a daily basis. we're not only -- they're not only hacking businesses, they're hacking our government, everything. and to show how unserious the republicans are about this issue, which we have been trying to do something as democrats for four years. the republicans file an amendment on this bill knowing that the president has already said he is going to veto the bill. mr. president, i'm so disappointed how the republicans are being really ungenuine in trying to move forward on this

legislation. the bill's going to be vetoed. the president said so. but the other thing i think is important for the american public to understand and make sure that all members of the senate and their staff understand, this is an authorization. i can remember as a boy in nevada, high school, and i would see these big announcements. center cannon, senator bible have introduced this legislation. i wondered why nothing ever happened on it. it was only to authorize the important function of this government and has been since the beginning is to have an appropriation committee that we, after something's authorized, it has to be funded. so of course this authorization bill is important and we believe it's important. but my friend the republican leader is treating it in trying to perform some magic because he's really not serious about it

for the reasons i've mentioned. mr. president, i want to change the subject. i've thought about this little girl here for so many years. little reilly. reilly gust of ason. what a -- gustavson. what a sweet sweet spirit. she was 9 years old. she ate a salad that almost killed her. there was spinach in the salad and e. coli her kidneys began to fail, her pancreas, too, started to dysfunction. before long, fluids swelled up around her brain heart and lungs, all told reilly spent 34 days in the hospital as a 9-year-old.

i wish that were the only time she had spent in the hospital, but it's not. i wish that were the only time she needed medical care, but it's not. eventually she recovered in parentheses, but mr. president, the lasting effects on this little girl have been horrible. she developed diabetes because of the damage to her pancreas and she takes an insulin shot now every day. she'll need a kidney transplant before she turns 30. that's what the doctors have told her. as horrific as her account is, it's not unique. this little girl now is a teenager and still sick, her growth was stunted. unfortunately, for many americans, falling ill from contaminateed food has become all too regular. according to the centers for disease control one in every six americans get sick from

contaminated food every year. that's about 48 million americans who become sick from food in this great country. more than 3,000 people die every year from food borne illness. and those who don't die can be forced to deal with a lifetime of health complications just like reilly. yes, she's alive. oh but what horrible citizens followed her having a salad. at a recent senate hearing on this issue a woman named laura bush shared her experience. listen to her account of the ordeal she shared -- and i quote -- "--" during my junior year in college my life suddenly and irrevocably changed after eating a spinach salad. it quickly escalated to a diagnosis of appendicitis. through clenched teeth i argued

with the doctors this was incorrect, something didn't feel right. it was like nothing i had ever imagined before. they began to suspect that i was right when i quickly took a turn for the worse. i found myself in class one day in a hospital bed the next. i spent the next three weeks in and out of two hospitals two emergency rooms three urgent treatment facilities, before i was well enough to go home. i've lost 20 pounds and went from being an otherwise young healthy student to an emotional and physical disaster. all in less than a month's time. i spent the next five months in recovery and on continuous antibiotics and vitamins as a result of complications. i almost lost my colon i lost my dignity when i was unable to feed myself, i was able to return to school but it was months before i could walk to

class without stopping. in so many ways my body will never be the same." sadly, mr. president, there are far too many americans with stories similar to reilly's and lauren's. take, for example, the recent listeria outbreak in two brands of food products millions of americans enjoy ice cream and humus. to date it's claimed the lives of six people and sickened hundreds and hundreds of others. one of the ice cream factories has closed as a result of this. this is all the more tragic because each of the contaminations could have been prevented. the united states is the most advanced country in the world we have the technology and resources to ensure better food quality for people like reilly. we made progress, in 2010 for a lot of reasons but not the least of which was reilly, congress

passed the most sweeping reforms to our food safety laws since the 1930's. the law shifted the focus from responding to contamination to preventing it. the f.d.a. is working hard to implement the critical law. but the food safety modernization act cannot work if it doesn't have any money. current funding levels don't provide the resources necessary to adequately fund programs to stop food contamination and create a system based on prevention. mr. president, it's that word again. sequestration. they've never recovered this agency from the hit taken when government was closed because of sequestration -- the government was closed and then because of sequestration. by keeping sequestration in place republicans are hampering efforts to stamp out food borne illness. in order -- nobody should have to worry about dying from eating

ice cream or being hospitalized from eating spinach. congress must act to strengthen the food safety of our country and the food safety modernization act and we must do it now. let's stop sequestration. let's go ahead and authorize the bills but remember, we cannot fund them with funny money. i can't imagine my republican friends -- i said before my friend the chairman of the armed services committee allowing this bill to go forward with this deficit spending that they call o.c.o. the pentagon thinks it's wrong all people who understand economics think it's wrong, all $39 billion deficit spending is just wrong. we need to fund the military and we need to fund the nonmilitary, that is nondefense programs. and we need to do it to make our homeland safer. i hope, mr. president that

programs like this, that reilly has suffered so we would do something or that we take care of her and people just like her and do something to fund these programs to prevent illnesses that are caused by food. we need to act responsibly raise the level of funding for these vital programs because for far too many americans this issue is a matter of life and death. all we need to do is ask reilly and ask lauren and they'll tell you. mr. president, i see no one on the floor wishing to speak so -- i take that back. there is someone. i would ask the chair to announce the business of the day. the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will 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 fiscal year 2016 for military activities of the department of defense and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order the time until 1:30 a.m. will be equally divided in the usual form. -- 11:30 a.m. will be equally divided in the usual form. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: i would like to yield five minutes to the senator from minnesota. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: i rise today to discuss the metal theft prevention act which i filed as an amendment to the national defense authorization act. in a moment i'm going to ask unanimous consent to make this amendment pending but first i'd like to explain why this amendment is so important. i've been working on this legislation for years. senator schumer is a cosponsor. in the past i've had support for

this bill as cosponsors in senator hatch in senator lindsey graham and senator hoeven. why has there been bipartisan support in the past for this bill? well i think we all know that this is a public safety issue. metal thieves have targeted labs power stations, and gas lines, causing blackouts service disruptions and even dangerous explosions. in september of 2013, four people were injured in an explosion at a university of california berkeley electrical station, officials blamed it on copper theft that occurred two hours before the explosion. georgia power was having a huge problem with thieves targeting a substation that feeds the entire atlantic -- atlanta hartsfield international airport. the airport was getting hit two to three times a week and surveillance didn't lead to any arrests. the crime is also hurt the dignity of our veterans. last year in minnesota the

thieves distributed dozens of veterans' graves, taking the brass rods that hold the symbols of service. it's a time almost too callous to come precedent but sadly there was the first time. in memorial day if 2012 just in minnesota thieves stole more than 200 bronze star markers. that's why this bill is supported by the veterans of foreign policy wars, the vietnam veterans of america the iraq and afghanistan veterans of america as well as major law enforcement agencies and business groups. it will combat the shameless crime by putting modest record keeping requirements in place. it will limit the value of cash transactions to a hundred dollars and require sellers in prove they actually own the metal. all we're trying to do is stop scrap metal dealers from taking stolen metal and the reason you

can't do it state by state is a lot of states are doing this but a lot of states aren't. and what these thieves are doing is crossing state lines stealing the metal in one state and selling it in another. this is an important bill and it has been heavily lobbied against by the scrap metal dealer association. the democratic side of the aisle has cleared this bill. we are ready to go forward with this amendment. there are objections on the republican side. but i think people better step back and realize the next time there is a major explosion the next time that something happens like this which is happening on a weekly basis across the country, that they understand that we could have done something to prevent it. i ask consent to set aside mr. president, the pending amendment in order to call up my amendment number 1555. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. mccain: reserving the right to object and i will be object. i object on behalf of the judiciary committee. this would criminalize stealing metal, it makes it a federal

offense. therefore, the judiciary properly has jurisdiction. also establishes civil penalties enforceable by the attorney general, it directs review of this crime by federal sentencing commission and it has no tie to the national security nor the national defense authorization act. so i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. ms. klobuchar: mr. president i'm disappointed that there is an objection to calling up this commonsense amendment that has so much support from veterans, law enforcement, and businesses. i have stood in front of small businesses all over my state including with senator hoeven in fargo, a number of electric companies that have been repeatedly broken into, i believe this does have national security implications because there is a provision in the bill about critical infrastructure and creating a felony-level crime when they're stealing from that critical infrastructure and i believe it is very important that we debate and vote on this

issue as part of the national defense authorization act. i will continue to work to get a vote on this amendment during this entire year and i worry that at some point we're going to have a major damage to our infrastructure as a result of metal theft and everyone will look back and wonder why we didn't listen to every major law enforcement group in our country or to every single business that has been affected or to the electric companies who are being broken into all the time or to our veterans' groups who just want their final resting places to be respected. despite the lobby of the scrap metal dealers i will not let this rest. thank you mr. president and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i would point out -- i would point out to the senator from minnesota that we started on this legislation in the committee in may we're now well into june, many weeks we're two weeks into the consideration of this legislation, and the senator

from minnesota comes to the floor with a compelling amendment. i suggest that the next time around that the senator from minnesota raise the issue with the authorization committee and with other -- and also when the bill first comes to the floor rather than waiting two weeks before having a compelling interest in this very serious issue. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i just would like to say -- mr. mccain: i still have the floor, i would address to the senator from minnesota. the rules of the senate are that usually we don't like to be interrupted. mr. president, we're going to embark on the mccain-feinstein amendment, which i understand is going to be voted on at 11:30 is that correct? i ask the -- the presiding officer: the

senator is correct. mr. mccain: thank you. i yield the floor. ms. klobuchar: i would just like to note that i have been attempting to pass this legislation now for three years. senator hatch was my first cocosponsor, then senator graham then senator hoeven, and every step of the way i have been stymied by the scrap metal dealer lobby. and i believe this is an important bill, it is a simple bill. it will greatly help because these thieves are crossing state lines with the stolen copper. and i just appreciate, obviously, senator mccain's viewpoint as being the -- managing this bill on the floor but i just think the record should reflect that i have tried many times to get this amendment up on other bills to work with the committee but every single time i get stopped in my tracks by this lobby and at some point i'd like to have a vote on this so that people can vote their heart and vote with their law enforcement or vote with the scrap metal dealers they can decide. but for now our side has

cleared this bill, and the republicans are objecting to this. thank you and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mccain: i ask that further proceedings under-- under the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent that time spent be equally divided while in the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: and consent to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, there are serious matters on the floor of the senate involving the defense authorization bill, and i have just asked the chairman of the armed services committee

for five minutes to speak on an issue totally unrelated to it but one which is critically important to the future of america and critically important today to the city of chicago illinois. last night mr. president i stayed up late to watch the chicago blackhawks win the stanley cup. they were playing the tampa bay lightning, an extraordinarily good team, and in the sixth game they won 2-0. that's three stanley cups in six years. and i can tell you that you can't visit chicago and go to any street corner or anyplace without seeing evidence of loyalty to the chicago blackhawks. it is an incredible story of a storied franchise in the national hockey league which has become a premier sports story in a great sports city of chicago and last night was so much fun for all of us to watch that victory. mr. president, any child who has

ever laced up an old pair of skates or put tape on a stick has thought about what happened last night. from springfield illinois, to sass ca toon, from moose jaw to miami, if you spent any time at all around the game of hockey, you wonder what it must feel like to stand at the end of a very long season after three long periods of total effort and white-knuckle moments before tens of thousands of elated fans and hoist up the most storied trophy in all of sports, lord stanley's cup. mr. president, the goal of every team in the national hockey league is to hoist that cup at the end of the season. i rise today to pay tribute to the players coaches staff and fans of the chicago blackhawks, the 2015 stanley cup champions whose season-long mantra of one goal was realized last night at the united center in chicago. last night the blackhawks won their sixth stanley cup in franchise history and the third in the last six years with a 2-0 victory over the tampa bay

lightning, a formidable team as well. fans at the madhouse on madison as we call the united center, witnessed duncan keith and patrick kaine score show-stopping goals while goaltender cory crawford seemed incredible in his defense stopping all of the 25 shots that he faced. i congratulate especially owner rocky wertz and head coach joe quinville who is known as coach q. captain serious jonathan taves, the blackhawks' front office, most of all the legions of blackhawk fans as they celebrate another stanley cup championship. those who know the history of this team and those who have followed them for decades know that in the past seven years there has been a transformation of the blackhawks, with rocky wertz taking over as the owner this team went on television just at the moment when they were reaching this level of perfection, and they started winning over thousands of fans, not just across chicago but across illinois and the midwest.

blackhawks' fans, i think are the best fans in hockey, and you can understand if a lot of them are a little tired and hoarse this morning. the blackhawks began the play-offs with a remarkable double overtime victory against the nashville predators another excellent team. we were down 3-0 after the first period. the hawks stormed back to tie the game and won on a duncan keith goal. that victory set the tone for a great run through the play-offs a goal by brent seabrook in triple overtime in game four helped the hawks defeat nashville in six games. a sweep of the minnesota wild followed setting up a showdown with the anaheim ducks and the western conference finals. the hawks were behind in the series 1-0 2-1 and 3-2 but they earned double and triple overtime victories on their way to winning in seven games clinching a berth in the stanley cup nienls. the hawks followed a familiar pattern in dropping game one and three of the final but they took the 3-2 series lead into mobbed

mobbed -- monday night's game six on home ice. it was another close contest as kaine's one timer with 5:14 remaining marked the first time either team led by more than one goal in the entire series. the time slowly ticked down until 22,424 fans at the united center were finally able to erupt in celebration. it was a great night for blackhawks' fans and the culmination of a tremendous team effort. antoine vermet, acquired at the trade deadline, had two stanley cup goals in the final. goaltender todd darling stood tall in the net when his team needed him the most. duncan keith was an iron man earning the smyth trophy for play-off m.v.p. while logging over seven hours of ice time in 23 games. mr. president, i can't tell you how happy i am for those

blackhawks and all of their amazing fans and their stanley cup championship. it's been a thrill to watch this team throughout the years and i look forward to seeing president obama host the stanley cup champion blackhawks yet another time at the white house. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: mr. president, i have serious concerns with the language that was tacked onto the house fisa reform bill that passed the senate, and at the end of my remarks i'm going to ask unanimous consent request and i say that because maybe other members of the senate would like to be heard or would like to maybe reject my unanimous consent. i want to give them the privilege of knowing i am doing this.

this language in the fisa bill made changes to the federal criminal code to implement four important multilateral treaties related to nuclear terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. it's good that these treaties are finally being implemented. the senate gave its advice and consent to these treaties back in 2008. in the years since then, however, the senate leadership repeatedly failed to bring bills to the floor that would implement them, but the language which is now law omits a number of key provisions that were requested by both the obama administration and the bush administration so i want my colleagues to know that this has had support from both republicans and democrat presidents and the president in

the past. my amendment number 1786 restores these provisions which are important tools to combat the greatest of -- gravest of threats to our national security and i'm happy to note that senator whitehouse, the ranking member of the judiciary committee's subcommittee on crime and terrorism has joined me in offering this amendment. first, the amendment adds the authority for prosecutors to seek the death penalty for newly created crimes in appropriate cases. under the criminal code, similar crimes already carry the possibility of the death penalty singling out these new offenses under this treaty which are intended to stop terrorists from threatening us with the world's most dangerous weapons for lesser punishment simply makes no sense. for example section 2280 and 2281 of the code which

criminalizes various acts of violence on the high seas already provide for the possibility of death penalty. so it's only logical then that the new sections 2288 -- 2280-a and 2281-a which criminalizes acts of terrorism on the high seas related to weapons of mass destruction should as well include the death penalty. the newly created offenses of nuclear terrorism now codified in 2332-i should as well. in fact, i'm hard pressed to think of an offense for which the death penalty might be more appropriate than nuclear terrorism. terrorists who kill americans especially nuclear terrorists, should be eligible for the death

penalty. this shouldn't at all be professorly, and i think the support of both a former president bush and a present president obama speaks to that point. terrorists who kill americans especially nuclear terrorists, then should be eligible for the death penalty and i can't repeat too often shouldn't be controversial. second the amendment makes newly created criminal offenses material support predicates. in other words the amendment would provide the government the ability to prosecute those who finance or otherwise provide material support for terrorists. naturally, these are complex crimes that aren't committed by just one person. they involve entire networks that need to be stopped in their tracks. this provision will help do that by making sure that those who

provide material support to terrorists don't escape justice. third, the amendment would add these offenses to the list of those crimes that are predicates for wiretap applications. as the law now stands prosecutors can't request a traditional criminal wiretap against a terrorist suspected of breaking these new laws. but at the same time they can get a wiretap to investigate a long list of less serious offenses. again, it doesn't make sense. in fact, this is a dangerous omission. our government needs the ability to listen in on calls of suspected nuclear terrorists, so this provision would permit prosecutors, then, to request the authority to do so from a

federal judge. once again i use the word common sense. these are commonsense fixes with the support of both a republican president and a democratic president fixing and harmonizing these recently created crimes with the rest of the criminal code. they are requested by both the obama and obama administrations -- and bush administrations. because they will protect us from the catastrophe that could result from terrorists seeking the use of ultimate weapons against us. so i urge my colleagues to support grassley-whitehouse amendment number 1786. so at this time, mr. president i would request unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendments and call up and make pending the grassley-whitehouse

amendment number 1786. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. reed: mr. president reserving my right to object. first, the senator is chairman of the committee which jurisdiction lies for this particular amendment so he has complete, in fact, more than complete authority to bring it up in regular order and bring it forward to the floor. in addition we have been advised by the department of justice that these provisions are not necessary given the scope of existing law with respect to terrorists and with respect to anyone who conducts a terrorist act and perhaps an example of that is the boston bombing where there is now someone condemned to death for terrorist activities not involving a nuclear device but i hardly think he would get any less of a sentence regard less of the device he used. for all these reasons i would

object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. grassley: mr. president i accept the good-faith effort to listen to my point of view and even though there is an objection, but i would like just one minute to react to the objection. this amendment only does what both the bush and obama administrations asked congress to do, to make clear that the death penalty could apply to any act of nuclear terrorism. it is not enough that other criminal statutes might apply and might also carry the death penalty. quite the opposite, that terrorists who use guns and explosives to kill can face the death penalty means nuclear terrorists certainly should have as well. it does not take too much imagination to come up with a situation which under current law the death penalty might not clearly apply. we're all aware of the threat of

cyberterrorism. if a terrorist took over a power plant and caused a nuclear meltdown, it is not clear that his crime would be eligible for the death penalty under any other federal criminal code. it simply isn't shep -- accept this potential gap in the law which my amendment fixes. so once again i'm sorry there was an objection. i'm not done with this. we'll continue it at some other environment, and i respect my colleagues however for objecting. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the president pro tem. mr. hatch: i rise to speak out at a time when our world is on fire. putin's russia is on the march invading a sovereign neighbor in a bid to rebuild the soviet empire. china asserts growing strength and aggression in provocative ways in the pacific. iran presses ahead in its

efforts to develop nuclear weapons capability and threatens to put out the deadliest weapons known to man in the hands of a maniacal, rogue state. the islamic state continues to extend its barbaric reign of terror. terrorist groups including al qaeda and the arabian peninsula and al-shabaab use the refuge of failed states to plot attacks on our homeland. and across the globe our allies look to the united states to provide the leadership necessary to confront these threats to peace. mr. president, one of the foundational purposes of our constitution was to establish a the federal government -- a federal government to provide for the common defense. in facilitating this purpose the congress is charged with two

particularly crucial duties -- establishing the legal authority for our military to operate and funding our military's activities. for 53 years in a row congress has fulfilled these responsibilities with an annual national defense authorization act and accompanying funding through the appropriations process. despite the gridlock that has so often beset the legislative process in recent years congress has consistently risen to the call of its constitutional duty every year to authorize and appropriate on behalf of our brave men and women in uniform. this year, our colleagues on the armed services committee have lived up to the finest traditions of this body in crafting the national defense authorization act ndaa for 2016. this provides for our national security needs across a wide variety of fronts including programs to aid allies such as ukraine and iraq that face aggression, compensation for

men and women who put their lives on the line to defend our freedom, restructuring to improve readiness authority to procure a wide range of weapons systems including the f. 35 joint fighter that are crucial to maintaining our capabilities and acquisition reform to restore accountability to defense contracting and make the money we spend go further. these aren't republican or democrat priorities. they are american priorities and they are concrete steps we need to take to make sure our safety -- ensure our safety and security for years to come. they this have the support of every single senator. the bill authorizes a total of $600 billion for spending defense spending in the coming year the very same amount requested by president obama president himself. mr. president, president obama and our colleagues on the armed services committee did not come

up with that number out of thin air. in testimony before the senate armed services committee this year all four of the military service chiefs testified that american lives are being put at risk if we can't defense spending at the sequester levels. the amount proposed by president obama and embraced by the armed services committee is the amount that both republican and democrat as well as nonpartisan experts believe is crucial to the defense department's ability to provide our national security. surely such an approach on such a measure should win broad support from both parties. nevertheless many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are threatening a filibuster over the bill and the amount it authorizes. they are considering the prospect of defeating the national defense authorization act for the first time in 53 years unless we agree to their demands to increase spending on desk programs. put another way they are

willing to condition the ability of our soldiers, sailors airmen and marines to defend our nation on their demand for more funding for wasteful government bureaucracy that already costs far too much. let me be clear. to roll back the progress on spending after years of profligate spending is mis misguided. to hijack the defense bill, when we face so many crises around the world represents the height of irresponsibility. and to make such a my way or the highway demand to the senate fulfilling its basic duties is unworthy of this body. many of us have worked toward various solutions to replace the sequester going forward. republicans and democrats alike have their preferred alternatives to the current funding arrangements.

nevertheless we simply cannot shirk our dietaryies to provide for the common defense in the present. political reality demands that's we reject partisan grand standing and work together on this must-pass bill. over the last two weeks the majority leader and the chairman have represented the senate at its finest. we have considered the bill on time a needed change from recent years when it restores the senate's proper voice in national defense. we've held powers upon hours of debate -- hours upon hours of debate on the floor. as part of the open amendment process the senate considered an amendment from the ranking member of the armed services committee that would condition the funding level on the domestic spending increases sought by our democratic colleagues. despite my disagreements on the substance i want to commend the ranking member for his sincere advocacy and for his

determination to put his plan before this body for an up-or-down vote. as that report shows a majority strongly disagrees with the minority's alternative having voted on it, it is time for the senate to wrap up our debate and pass this bill. to exploit the supermajority threshold, on a bill of such vital importance to our national defense would represent a gross dereliction of duty and tragically -- and a tragically irresponsible choice. mr. president, i urge my colleagues in the minority, do not give in to the temptation of partisan granding. do not let it become -- strand standing. do not place the fire to fight the majority over our shared duty to keep this country safe and do not jeopardize our men and women in uniform to win concessions for yet more domestic spending. work with us.

embrace the funding levels the obama administration believes is necessary to keep us safe and keep alive our proud tradition of putting national security ahead of partisan politics. thank you mr. president. with that i yield the floor. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: i know there's important debate going on here on a number of different issues but i want to take a few minutes and talk about america's losing one of its entrepreneurs are and citizens. last night at 10:30 my friend, kirk could you bane died. -- cubin died. 98 years old. and when history books are written they'll say a lot about this good man. i had the good fortune as a young lawyer to meet him.

i, mr. president didn't do any of his mergers and acquisitions and all the stock stuff, i didn't do any of that. but when i met him he didn't need that. when we first met he was a businessman with an airline called transnational airlines. i'll talk about that in a minute but started out with one airplane. i knew that kirk was failing because i and i were supposed to go watch the maywetter-back yes fight. and -- pacquio fight. i knew his days were numbered for lack of a better description. i kept in touch with him all these many years. i'm not going to both about all the great legal work i did for

kirk, i didn't do much but i do do a lot of work for his brother, nish cacone. he's never forgotten all the work i did for his brother. kirk had two siblings, a woman who is a sweet sweet lady, her name was rose, his sister rose. she died not along ago on -- that was really hard on him. he cried and we shed a tear together. mr. president, he was born in 1917 fresno, california, his parents were armenian immigrants. he grew up in a very difficult time he didn't graduate from the eighth grade he became a prizefighter he became the

pacific amateur welterweight champion and his name was rifle right cokoyian. his brother biff was also a boxer and he fought. curt didn't fight too much. mr. president, on the floor is one of ours if not the hero that we have in the senate for military endeavors the senior senator from arizona. and it's important to talk about kirk kakoyian for what he did for our country in the military. using that term broadly in the military. he had learned to fly as milking cows and looking after a woman's cattle who had an airstrip near now edwards air force base, that's where he learned to fly at a place called

the happy bottom riding club. and that's where he learned to fly. he loved to fly. he got his pilot eats license in just a few months. he wanted to go on to the military but he couldn't at the time because we weren't in the war yet. the british royal air force was ferrying canadian-built planes over the north atlantic because england was desperate for help. the nazis were after them, hitler was sweeping europe, and the submarines were sinking the ships trying to take supplies to england. so out of desperation canada, which was part of the great britain at the time, decided they would help. the problem was to fly those airplanes over the north

atlantic was really, really very difficult. they have two routes. one was 1,400 miles. the other was shorter but extremely more dangerous. and so kirk kakoyian agreed to take the one more dangerous. it was dangerous because the north atlantic is very brutal. but he got a lot of money for each flight, almost a thousand dollars for each flight, and he delivered 33 planes to england and every one of those flights was a nightmare but he did it. he was truly an american patriot. they have done a little documentary on what he did flying across the north atlantic with some other gallant men who did that and helped preserve freedom in the world and take on the nazis. after the war he had saved a lot of his money. he bought a cessna.

expensive at the time, $5,000. he worked in general aviation. he first visited las vegas in 1944 and in 1947, he paid $64,000 for the airline that i first met him that he was dealing with, transinternational airlines which was a small air charter service that basically flew gamblers between l.a. and las vegas. he of course was a very frugal man. he operated the airline until 1968 when he sold it for $104 million. he paid $60,000 for it, sold it for $104 million. that was him. he was an entrepreneur. he moved into las vegas quickly. he a piece of land across from the flamingo health for $960,000. it was 80 acres. and that is now where caesar's

palace is. he was originally the landlord for that property, and he made $9 million on that deal. he then short italy thereafter paid $5 million cash for an off-strip property, the first one that had ever been done. that is something i was involved with. it was quite an interesting thing. that transaction showed to me his absolute honesty. i've said publicly -- i'm not going to go into detail here, but i will just end by saying the lawyer that i worked with, bill singleton said kirk doesn't do business that way and walked out of the room. he wound up buying that property. that's where the international hotel was built. it was a very, very expensive property at the time, it was off strip. the first two people to appear

in the show room there were barbara streisand and elvis pressley. that was the beginning of kirk kerkorian ascension to power broker to say the least in las vegas. he is -- he bought and sold m.g. m. movies two different times, and in the process, of course built the m.g.m. hotel in las vegas. he was -- he was just a really interesting, wonderful man. he is one of the personalities i will never forget. my relationship with him is one of the special things in my life. i feel so fortunate to be able to talk on a personal basis about this man. he was one of a kind. i'm so disappointed his number one person, tony mandicate called me to tell me that kirk had died. and to be honest with you the

tears on the other side of the phone connection from tony ended the conversation because he couldn't talk anymore. now he is responsible among others but principally him for disposing of this man's wealth. he didn't make all of his money in movies in hotel and casinos. he branched out. he made a number of fortunes. when people said why would this man -- how does he know anything about the automobile industry? he wound up owning large chunks of general motors. he was one of the chief players in chrysler where he no longer made in those propositions millions of dollars but billions. he made on his chrysler corporation deal that people said what a fool, why would he do that, about $5 billion he made on that deal.

not too long ago about three years ago i met him for lunch in los angeles. i said i have got to go. he pulls out of his pocket his watch. i said kirk, what is that? he says my watch. it was a timex with no band on it. he said it keeps perfect time. he came to the beverly whiltshire -- wilshire hotel drove himself in a little jeep, a jeep with the top partially down. that was him. he was a very private man. he rarely gave interviews, i mean rarely gave interviews, even though he is one of the richest men in los angeles, he was probably the most private. he simply did not do things in public. with all of his hotels he owned you know, those people that have a little bit of knowledge of las vegas, a lot of stuff is done

with complementary privileges. if you're a hotel owner you get a lot of stuff. not kirk kerkorian. he would not take a comp for anything. everything he paid for. one of the last times he went to a fight he also would not sit at ringside. he wanted to be up away from everybody. in 2008, he was worth $16 billion. i don't know how much he was worth when he died, but he's given huge amounts of his wealth away. his job for tony mandicate and others to give the rest of his money away. it's a sad day for me and the people who knew kirk kerkorian. but he lived a full life. his two daughters. he has taken care of everybody that was always around him. he paid his help well. i just wish i had the ability to

articulate what a wonderful human being kirk kerkorian was. i will always remember him and i will always -- when i talk about people who know something about business, i have to interject the name kirk kerkorian. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that now that the senator from california have 15 minutes and i have ten minutes and the vote delayed until completion of the 15 minutes and the ten minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mrs. feinstein: thank you very much mr. president and i thank the distinguished chairman for this. senator mccain, i don't think i'll take 15 minutes. we have worked it down. but, mr. president i join senator mccain and ranking member reed as well as senator collins and the other original cosponsors senators leahy

paul king, flake heinrich whitehouse mikulski, wyden murphy hirono, warner, baldwin brown and markey in offering an amendment that will help ensure the united states never again carries out coercive and abusive interrogation techniques or indefinite secret detentions. i'm very pleased that the senate will consider this amendment and i urge an aye vote. the amendment we are offering today is really very simple. it applies the authorizations and restrictions for interrogations in the army field manual to the entire united states government. it extends what congress did in 2005 by a vote of 90-9 with the detainee treatment act which i believe senator mccain authored which banned the department of defense from using

techniques not authorized by the army field manual and also banned the government from using cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment or punishment. the amendment also requires prompt access by the international committee of the red cross to any detainee held by the united states government. both of these provisions are consistent with united states policy for the past several years, but this amendment would codify these requirements into law. president obama banned the use of coercive and abusive interrogation techniques by executive order in his first few days in office. actually on january 22, 2009. that executive order formally prohibits as a matter of policy the use of interrogation techniques not specifically authorized by the army field manual on human intelligence

collector operations. this amendment places that restriction in law. it is long over due. the amendment also codifies another section of president obama's january 2009, executive order, requiring access by the international committee of the red cross to all u.s. detainees in u.s. government custody. access which has been historically granted by the united states and other law-abiding nations and is needed to fulfill our obligations under international law, such as the geneva conventions. it is also important to understand that the policies in the 2009 executive order are only guaranteed for as long as a future president agrees to leave them in place. this amendment would codify these two provisions into law.

current law already bans torture, as well as cruel inhumor degrading treatment or punishment. however, this amendment is still necessary because interrogation techniques were able to be used which were based on deeply flawed legal theory, and those techniques, it was said, did not constitute torture or cruel inhumane or degrading treatment. these legal opinions could be written again. in 2009, president obama's executive order settled the issue as former policy, and this amendment will codify a prohibition on a program that was already defunding at the end of the bush administration. c.i.a. director john brennan has clearly stated that he agrees with the ban on interrogation

techniques that are not in the army field manual. director brennan wrote the following to the intelligence committee in 2013 about the president's 2009 executive order, and i quote -- "i want to reaffirm what i said during my confirmation hearing. i agree with the president's decision and while i am director of the c.i.a., this program will not under any circumstances be reinitiated. i personally remain firm in my belief that enhanced interrogation techniques are not an appropriate method to obtain intelligence and that their use impairs our ability to continue to play a leadership role in the world." end quote. furthermore, it's important to point out that the senate and the house both require the use of the army field manual across

the government in the fiscal year 2008 intelligence authorization bill. unfortunately, president bush vetoed that legislation. mr. president, whatever one may think about the c.i.a.'s former detention and interrogation program, we should all agree that there can be no turning back to the era of torture. interrogation techniques that together would constitute torture do not work. they corrode our moral standing and ultimately undermine any counterterrorism policies they are intended to support. so before i close, i would like to ask unanimous consent to place in the record a series of letters and statements in support of this amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. feinstein: thank you mr. president. i ask my colleagues to support

this amendment and by doing so we can recommit ourselves to the fundamental precept that the united states does not torture. without exception and without equivocation and ensure that the mistakes of our past are never again repeated in our future. i ask for a yes vote and i yield the floor. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: for my colleagues --. the presiding officer: we are in a quorum call. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent the proceedings under the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: i wish my colleagues if they wish to to disregard my statement with the

exception of the statement by general david petraeus. i don't know of a military leader that is more respected in america and throughout the world than general david petraeus. i don't have to remind my colleagues he was commander of u.s. forces in iraq and afghanistan after the c.i.a. and who arguably has more experience dealing with foreign detainee issues across the u.s. government than any other american and here are his words. these are the words of general david petraeus -- quote -- "i strongly support the extensions of the army field manual that currently governor the military to all military and contractors. our government has paid a high price for the information gained by use of techniques beyond those in the field manual and in my view that price far outweighed the value of the

information gained through the use of techniques beyond those in the manual. i would urge my colleagues to listen to the words of david petraeus. here's a letter that i received this month from former intelligence interrogation professionals, u.s. military c.i.a. and f.b.i., these an excerpt of a letter they sent this month. as intelligence and interrogation professionals who have offered our collective voice opposing torture and other forms of degrading treatment we strongly encourage you to support the amendment, on and on. the interrogation methods that have kept america safe for generations are sophisticated humane lawful and produce reliable actionable intelligence in any interrogation scenario. to promote a return to that respected level of professionalism, there must be a single well-defined standard

of conduct consistent with our values as a nation across all u.s. agencies to govern the detention and interrogation of people anywhere in u.s. custody. supported by some of our most experienced military leaders in a letter this month 30 retired, including a former commandant of the marine corps former commander in chief u.s. army europe, among others wrote the following -- and i quote -- "this amendment not only solidifies america's stance against torture and other forms of cruel or degrading treatment, it also ensures that interrogation methods are professional and reflect the government's best practices. that way we not only ensure these interrogations are humane and lawful but also that they produce reliable intelligence on which we depend if we are to fight and win against the current terrorist threat." mr. president, i ask unanimous

consent the letter from those individuals dated june 9, 2015 be included in the record. and the --. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: and the letter from the 30 retired military officers including a former commander in chief of marine corps, also be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: in a letter this month the national association of evangelicals wrote the following in support of this amendment -- quote -- "while the use of torture is currently prohibited across all government agencies by executive order this fundamental principle must be enshrined in law to ensure no future president may authorize the use of torture." that's from the national association of evangelicals. the committee on international justice and peace in the united states conference of catholic bishops wrote the following in support of the amendment "in

catholic teaching torture is an intrinsic evil that cannot be justified under any circumstances as it violates the dignity of the human both victim and perpetrator and the society that tolerates it. we urge all senators to support the mccain-feinstein amendment that would help ensure laws are enacted so our government does not engage in torture ever again." mr. president, i respect the dedication and services of those charged with protecting this country. for 14 years america's security professionals in the military, the intelligence community and beyond have lived every day with a dogged determination to protect their fellow americans. at the same time, we must continue to insist that the methods we employ in this fight for peace and freedom must always always be as right and honorable as the goals and ideals that we fight for.

i believe past interrogation policies compromised our values stained our national honor and did little practical good. i don't believe we should have employed such practices in the past and we should never permit them in the future. this amendment provides greater assurances that never again will the united states follow that dark path of sacrificing our values for our short-term security needs. i also know that such practices don't work. i know from personal experience that the abuse of prisoners does not produce good, reliable intelligence. victims of torture will offer intentionally misleading information if they think their captors will believe it. i firmly believe that all people even captured enemies possess basic human rights which are protected by international standards often set by america's past leaders.

our enemies act without conscience. we must not. let us reassert -- reassert the contrary proposition that it is essential to our success in this war that we ask those who fight it for us to remain -- to remember at all times they are defending a sacred ideal of how nations should be governed and conduct their relations with others even our enemies. those of us who give them this duty are obliged by history by our nation's highest ideals and the many terrible sacrifices made to protect them by our respect for human dignity to make clear we need not risk our national honor to prevail in this or any war. we need only remember in the worst of times through the chaos and terror of war when facing cruelty, suffering and loss, that we are always americans and different, stronger, and better than those who would

destroy us. mr. president, i yield the balance of my time. mr. durbin: reed: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: i stand as a proud cocosponsor of this amendment. i commend senator feinstein and senator mccain because they have been the leaders in this senate and this country in expressing our fundamental values when it comes to the techniques we employ for those we detain in combat zones. their both words and personal example have set an extraordinary standard for us to respond to and this amendment is typical of what they've done. it would codify the terms of president obama's executive order 13491 that applies not only to the u.s. military but interrogation in other u.s. agencies. what is so critical to this debate, this amendment and the service of these two senators is

the recognition is that the humane treatment standard that we set for those who are in our custody also serves to protect our men and women if they fall into the hands of our opponents. we then can say with complete sincerity, complete fidelity that we demand that our troops receive the humane treatment when in the custody of hostile forces because that's what we do. when we deviate from that standard we imperil the safety and lives of our men and women in uniform who may fall into hostile hands. so as we adhere to these standards, we are not only setting a very high and -- bar for treatment of those that we may hold, but we are protecting innately the safety and the

health the welfare the well-being of those who serve in the uniform of the united states. and for that in particular i commend the sponsors of this amendment and urge all my colleagues to support it. and with that i would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: i'd like to thank senator mccain and senator reed for their remarks and i think particularly senator mccain whose life experience for me has been a guide post. i don't know anyone in this body who is more standup who sometimes can be more stubborn but this all comes to play as an important thing who stands for the real true, major issues that this country faces.

and i will never forget a conversation i had with him on the plane back from guantanamo, and when he spoke in the kennedy caucus room and used the tap language that he learned as a prisoner of war in vietnam. and to see this man so many years since that time tap out messages that were meant for prisonmates in other cells with such speed an alacrity certainly indicated that this was a very deep impression that was made on his life. and i think the fact that he has shared that with others, including myself, is really very important. john -- senator mccain, i want you to know how much i appreciate your work on this, and how grateful we are for your service to this country. you have unique courage and

unique stamina and maybe that's just all-american. thank you very much for your work and the same thing for senator reed, the ranking member on this committee. he is military, american through and through and i think to have his support has been just really terrific. so i want to thank both of them very much. it's a pleasure to work with you and i hope this passes. thank you very much. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i thank the senator from california for her fine words and for her friendship. i hope in return for this she will send back the water to california that arizona has stolen from our state. my beloved former colleague senator barry goldwater used to say in arizona we have so little water the trees chase the dogs. so we'd like to get the water back from california. i hope that can be part of our

wonderful friendship that we have enjoyed now for many years. i'd like to thank the senator from california. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: without objection, all time is yielded back. under the previous order the question now occurs on amendment 1889 offered by the senator from california mrs. feinstein. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: should i

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not on this, the yeas are 78 the nays are 21. the amendment is agreed to. mr. cornyn: mr. president? mr. president, i have five unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate, which have been approved by both the majority and minority leaders. i'd ask consent that these requests be agreed to and be printed in the record. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president i rise for a special request here that i just returned with four other members from a military trip overseas just a matter of

minutes ago and to find out the two amendments that i had -- i was trying to get pending and i'd really settle for just within of those two. i was not here when all of these u.c.'s were made and the arranges were put together between the parties. so i would just ask the leader on the other side -- or the handler on the other side, senator jack reed, if he would consider a waiver of your commitment to allow me to bring one of these up for -- to get in the queue? i yield to you. mr. reed: the senator from oklahoma, we have been trying to move forward on a basis of equal amendments. at this juncture, i am not prepared to make another amendment pending. there is a possibility that we spoke about briefly of including these amendments in the managers' package or, since its

germane, of trying to arrange for consideration after cloture along with other -- another germane amendment. so at this point i would not be prepared to -- mr. inhofe: i would only -- regaining the floor, i would only say to my good friend that, you know, second ranking on the armed services committee. i tried to do them before we left for four days on business. and also senator mikulski is my cosponsor on amendment number 1728. and so i've got to make a motion to lay the pending amendment aside for purposes of consideration of amendment number 1728. mr. reed: i would -- have you made the motion? mr. inhofe: i just did. mr. reed: i would object. mr. inhofe: met me ask unanimous consent to -- let me ask unanimous consent to lay the pending amendment aside for the purpose of considering the inhofe-mikulski commissary

amendment 1728. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. reed: at this time, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i want to make a comment about this because, first of all, this is something beyond anyone's -- no one could have controlled this. we had four members that were gone couldn't be helped, and it was on business. i have 41 amendments almost equally divided democrat and republican on an issue that is probably the most significant issue to the spouses of our kids that are over there overseas, and what it does is let us do an assessment before we close any of the commissaries -- not close them but privatize them. instead of privatizing and then seeing how it works. and i think everyone -- we have a vast majority of the people who do support that and it's something that is offered on a

bipartisan basis and it's something that a lot of people -- we have right now -- and i'd ask that it be put in the record -- a list of over 100 organizations that are sponsoring this amendment very strongly in support of this amendment, and consider it to be the most significant amendment in the everyday lives of our troops. anyone who travels overseas and travels to these various areas knows that when they go through a commissary, they see -- particularly in areas where there's not other opportunities out there; there's no competition -- but they see it's almost like a club. it's something that is so -- the wives and husbands, the families the kids, that's what they do. they go to the commissary. taking that away would be taking away a tra tradition. and, again the bill doesn't state it goes away, but it does temporarily privatize five major commissaries. now when that happens you've started the ball rolling.

and the bill also states -- and we discussed this in the committee -- that this gives us time to look and evaluate and see whether or not we want to privatize. and so everyone who is on here as a cosponsor has made the statement that, you know, why don't we find out first. and so that's all we want to do, instead of closing -- or transferring and then finding out whether or not we did the right thing and then go ahead and proceed however we think is in the best interest. so it is a very serious amendment. the presiding officer: the list of organizations will be placed in the record. without objection. mr. inhofe: okay, one last thing i would ask is ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendments.

the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. reed: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard.

mrs. gillibrand: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: mr. president, i rise to urge my colleagues to support my amendment number 1578, the military justice imriewflt improvement act, to ensure that survivors of military sexual assault have access to an unbiased, trained military judicial system. last year, despite the support of 55 senators, a coalition spanning the entire ideological spectrum including both the majority and minority leader, our bill to create an independent military justice system free of inherent biases and conflicts of interesting within the chain of command was filibustered by this body. but as we said then, we will not walk away. the brave men and women in uniform who are defending this nation deserve a vote. that is our duty. it is our oversight role.

it's congress' responsibility to act if the brave survivors of sexual assault are our sons, our daughters, our husbands, our wives who are being betrayed by the greatest military on earth. we owe them that, at the very least. over the last few years congress has forced the military to make many incremental changes to address this crisis, and after two decades of complete failure and lip service to zero tolerance, the military now says essentially trust us this time; we've got it. they misrepresent data to claim that theiration is accomplished, but -- they misrepresent data to claim that their mission is accomplished. but when you dig beneath, you will find that the assault rate is exactly where it was in 2010. an average of 52 cases every single day and three out of four service member survivors still don't think it's worth the risk of coming forward to report

crimes committed against them. 75% don't trust the current system! one in seven victims was assaulted by someone in their chain of command and 60% of the cases a supervisor or unit leader is responsible for either sexual harassment or sexual discrimination. this is not the climate that our military deserves. it is no surprise then that one in three survivors believed that reporting would hurt their career. for those who do report, they are more likely than not to experience retaliation. despite a much-touted reform that made retaliation a crime the d.o.d. made zero progress on improving the 62% retaliation rate that we had in 2012. according to a human rights watch report, the d.o.d. cannot

provide a single example of serious disciplinary action taken against those who retaliated against a victim of sexual assault. a sexual assault survivor is 12 times more likely to suffer retaliation than see their offender get convicted of a sex offense. and in my close review of 107 cases from the largest domestic military bases one from each service, in 2013, i found that nearly half of those who did move forward and report ended up dropping out of their cases. survivors still have little faith in this system. under any metric, the system remains plagued with distrust. it does not provide fair and justice produce that our survivors -- process that our survivors, our men and women in our military, deserve. simply purkts the military has not -- simply put the military

has not held up to the standard by general dempsey when he said, "we're on the clock. the president said to us in december you've got about a year to review this thing and if we haven't been able to demonstrate we are making a difference you know, then we deserve to be held to the scrutiny and standard." i urge my colleagues to hold the military to that higher standard. enough is enough with the spin, with the excuses and the false promises. and just yesterday i received a letter from a mother of a survivor of military sexual assault who is serving active duty. she says, "the reason i'm writing on her a behalf is because i fear she will be retaliatetaliated against for speaking owvment while the military is -- out. while the military son the hill lobbying senators not to support the military justice improvement act, i'm asking you to take a stand with survivors and their families. these military lobbyists have good intentions. however, i am doubtful any of

them will represent any perspective. i have experienced the anguish of a child that has been raped by another service member, a fellow brother in arms, whom she should have been able to trust. please support the military justice improvement act a commonsense law that significantly improves the military justice system. our military sons and daughters who survive these heinous crimes carry high rates of post traumatic stress disorder and suicide. i believe if the law is passed it will save lives and's -- and positively affect the lives of survivors. no one should have to suffer the chain of command when they report these crimes. retaliation happens so often be that a majority of these assaults go unreported. every military victim of sexual assault deserve due process professional treatment by a trained military official at

each opportunity to seek and receive justice. our military has promised improvement and has had adequate time in which to improve but the numbers show that the military has failed to live up to its promise. the department of defense has admitted that it made no progress since 2012. it's time for the chain of command to be removed from decision-making in sexual assault cases and replaced by those trained nonbiased military personnel educated in the law and experienced in handling sexual assault cases. further, mjaa specifically carves out sexual assault and other serious crimes with the remainder of military crimes being left in the chain of command. please hold the military to a higher standard by voting "yes" to an unbiased military system. we have to listen to our victims, our survivors the men and women who will give their lives to this country, who will sacrifice anything for this

country. american military, if they do these reforms will have fewer dangerous criminals and far more heroes. the brave men and women we send to war to keep us safe deserve nothing less than a justice system equal to their sacrifice. by listening to the victims, we can deliver that. i urge everyone here listen to our brave survivors support our bill, and do the right thing. i now would like to yield the floor to one of the authors of the military justice improvement act. the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i thank senator gillibrand for her leadership in this area over a long period of time. i add my voice to support of her amendment. she's been a great leader on the issue. as you see she's got a lot of

passion, dogged pursuit of justice. last year when i spoke in favor of this measure i made the point that this was not a new issue that required further study and incremental reforms. we had been hearing promises for years and years that there would be zero tolerance and a real crackdown on military sexual assault. last year the national defense authorization act included a lot of commonsense reforms but it did not include any fundamental reform of the military justice system. we were told to give these new adjustments to the current system a chance to work and come back next year. at the time i made the point that we had already tried working within the current system to no avail. i'm not one to advocate for

major sweeping reform if less will address the problem. but what we've been doing has not worked. last year, after congress passed the package of more modest reforms but not our military justice improvement act amendment, the chairman of the joint chief of staffs, general dempsey said -- quote -- "we've been given about a year to demonstrate both that we will treat this with the urgency it deserves and that we can take -- that we can turn the trend lines in a more positive direction." end of quote. he made clear that if we didn't see real progress, he wouldn't stand in the way of more major reforms. well, we have not seen significant movement. in terms of the number of sexual assault cases and the shocking rate of retaliation against

those who report, we simply don't see progress. that's probably because the current system is part of the problem. the fact is that victims of sexual assault cannot turn to an independent system to get justice combined with the very real fear of retaliation acts as a terrible deterrent to reporting sexual assault. if sexual assault cases are not reported they then cannot be prosecuted. if sexual assault isn't prosecuted it leaves predators remaining in the military and the perception that this sort of activity is going to be tolerated. by allowing this situation to continue, we're putting at risk the men and women who have volunteered to place their lives on the line.

we're also seriously damaging military morale and readiness. taking prosecutions out of the hands of commanders and giving them to professional prosecutors who are independent of the chain of command will help ensure impartial justice for the men and women of our armed forces. this would in no way take away the ability of commanders to punish troops under their command for military infractions. commanders also can and should be held accountable for the climate under their command. but the point here is the sexual assault is a law enforcement matter not a military one. this isn't some reform that came out of the blue either. we have an advisory committee pointed by the secretary of defense himself came out in

support of reforms. on september 27, 2013, the defense advisory committee on women in the services -- i think it goes by the acronym dacowits or something like that -- this committee voted overwhelmingly in support of each of the components of the military justice improvement act amendment. dacowits was created way back in 1951 by then-secretary of defense george c. marshall. the committee is composed of civilian and retired military men and women who are appointed by the secretary of defense to provide advice and recommendations on matters and policies relating to the recruitment and retention treatment, employment, integration and well-being of highly-qualified professional women in the armed forces.

historically this committee's recommendations have been very instrumental in effecting changes to laws and policies pertaining to military women. the bottom line is this isn't some advocacy group or fly-by-night panel. it's a long-standing advisory committee hand-picked by the secretary of defense and it supports the substance of our amendment to a "t." we've tried froarnlg -- reforming the current system and it didn't work. when we are talking about something as serious and life-altering as sexual assault we cannot afford to wait any longer. so i urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this amendment but this isn't -- as we proash this from the outside -- as we

approach this from the outside it gives me an opportunity to reiterate what i see so wrong in so many bureaucracies. we always promise change, but as i've looked back over a couple, three decades of this problem of the culture of various bureaucracies, nothing really happens from within. it's got to happen from without. and in this particular case of national defense being the number-one responsibility of the federal government, this change has to happen from without because it hasn't happened from within regardless of the promises. i yield the floor. mrs. mccaskill: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mrs. mccaskill: mr. president first i ask unanimous consent that major rick trimble an army fellow in my office be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the year. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. mccaskill: mr. president last year we gathered here to debate this issue.

you know, i think it's really important to point out that everyone in in body has the same heart when it comes to this issue and that is that we want to make sure that victims that are assaulted in our military are protected and supported that the system is highly trained and professional that perpetrators have due process but also are put in prison if the system finds them guilty. the difference is an honest policy difference over which system would better accomplish those goals. now, we have agreed on so much, and i think it's important to point out the work that the congress has done reforming sexual assault in the military, last year we had over 26 different provisions that were enacted into law. this year we haven't stopped. we have 13 more provisions in this piece of legislation. there is a disagreement over

which system would protect victims better. the historic reforms commanders have been stripped from their ability to overturn convictions they're being held accountable under rigorous new standards in oversight. every victim who reports now gets their own independent lawyer to protect their rights and fight for their interest. it's now a crime for any member to retaliate against a victim who supports -- who reports a sexual assault. the good soldier defense has been removed and dozens and dozens more. and, yes, there were panels that looked at this issue. one that was just referenced by my colleague from iowa was dacowits. they heard no witnesses from -- expert witnesses. they heard a brief presentation by myself and senator gillibrand, but they didn't spend days on it. whereas the system's response panel put in place by this congress spent weeks and weeks examining this heard from dozens and dozens of witnesses

from every side of the issue. and, by the way this panel was made up of a majority of civilians, majority women. and it voted overwhelmingly to reject an approach that removes commanders from their responsibility and their duties and, therefore their accountability. one of the members of this commission is the woman that runs the victims center at the department of justice for the entire country. her quote: "i went into this thinking senator gillibrand's legislation made sense. but when you hear the facts it just doesn't hold up." she was joined by a liberal icon a feminist icon, liz holtzman, the awe is thor of the -- the author of the reap seal statute here in the house of representatives. she spoke out and said once she understood the system and understood the facts she agreed

that keeping commanders accountable was crucial. now, have we seen progress? it is one thing to have anecdotal information. it is another to have a statisticically valid survey. the same survey that shows that retaliation is still a stubborn problem that we can't give up on also shows some very important data. if you're going to argue that retaliation is continuing a problem, you're relying on the same survey that tells us the following: incidents are down. that's meaningful progress. dropping 29% just in the last two years. reporting continues to go up, which was our stated goal as we began these reforms. reports are up 70% from 2012. back in 2012 only one in ten victims were reporting. we have that down to one in four. that is not spin.

that is facts. these victims are coming forward because they have renewed confidence that they will have support, that they will get good information, and that the system is not stacked against them. increased reporting occurred in all categories. the number of unrestricted reports are up and restricted reports are up. and importantly the number of reports that victims converted from restricted to unrestricted. furthermore, they went around the country and did focus groups with victims. this was rand. this wasn't the military. this wasn't the department of justice. this was the rand corporation well known for its ability to do statistical information went around the country and did focus groups. 11 different focus groups on different bases with just victims, and asked victims to come forward and participate in a survey. in that survey -- and this is really important mr. president -- 82% agreed that their unit commanders supported

them. 73% were satisfied with their unit commander's response. and 73% said they would recommend others report if they were the victim of a sexual assault. this is really important the gillibrand amendment does nothing to combat retaliation. the recent rand survey found that the majority of reported retaliation does not come from commanderrers. it comes from pierce. this is a cultural problem we have to get after. and i would stand ready to work with senator gillibrand, senator grassley and all of my colleagues to look and see what we have to do to get at this peer-to-peer retaliation. the gillibrand amendment moves retaliation from article 29 to article 93 at the ucmj, it would reduce the maximum punishment for this crime. and it finally prohibits the resources necessary to get at this problem. the amendment says we cannot add

any additional resources to get after this. historic reforms have been made. they are working based on data. and talking to dozens an dozens of prosecutors and untold victims, as a former sex plr -- former sex prosecutor who cares about nothing more than taking care of victims and making sure they have due process and are respected and deferred to i must urge this body to reject the gillibrand approach, which removes commanders from being held accountable where they must be held accountable. thank you mr. president. i urge a "no" vote on the gillibrand amendment. mrs. gillibrand: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: i'd like to respond to the last point and the first point that my colleague made, that somehow this reform makes commanders less responsible. the presiding officer: the senators are advised that all time for debate has expired.

mrs. gillibrand: i ask unanimous consent to continue the debate for five minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mrs. gillibrand: thank you. so this statement that somehow commanders are removed from responsibility and that we're not keeping commanders responsible, that couldn't be farther from the truth. today commanders are the only ones responsible for good order and discipline, at every level. the unit commander is responsible for good order and discipline. every aspect of the chain of command is responsible. it is their job to train troops, to maintain good order and discipline to prevent rapes and crimes being committed under their command and to punish retaliation. they have failed in that duty. in this chain of command 97% of commanders are responsible and do not have the convening authority that we would like to give to prosecutors.

97%, their job doesn't change one iota. so to say you are make being commanders less responsible is a false statement that has no bearing. in fact, they are 100% responsible for good order and discipline for training their troops to prevent these rapes and to prosecutor retaliation. and in one year, mr. president they've had notice for years about this. 25 years we got this, zero tolerance. they're super on notice now. in one year, not one notice of prosecution. this guy can do something this guy, this guy this guy. only 3% have the right to convening authority and that 3% needs to be moved to someone who's you actually a lawyer, who is a trained no knows how to weigh he had and can make the right decision. that is not what's happening today. so right now this supervisered and unit leader in 60% of cases where there's alleged gender

discrimination or sexual harassment it's the unit leader committing it. one in seven of the alleged rapists are one of these commanders. so there's a perspective by a survivor that this chain of command does not have my back. so i would like to give it to another chain of command senior military prosecutors to make this decision, so her perspective can be someone has got my back. this gain chain of command may be tainted for her. we need to professionalize the system. we're trying to make the military the best prosecutorial system in the world and they can do this mission. we need to give them the tools. and having this current status quo, the status quo that's going to charge of retaliation and no rape for 25 years, it's failing. and to have the same rate of retaliation we had two years ago when the commander said you must trust us to $ to to do this, every

one of these commanders could have stopped retaliation. when you say it is just peer-to-peer, it is dishonest. 30% of the cases are administrative. 30% are professional. only a commander can administer professional retaliation. this culture must change and if congress doesn't take their responsibility to hold the department of defense accountable, no one will. i yield the floor. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: the fiscal year ndaa passed last year. commanders have barely had time to implement these provisions, let alone assess their effective effectiveness. fiscal year 2014 ndaa included more than 50 individual provisions the most preenive set of chings to the uniform code of military justice since 1968. cumulative the last three ndaa's including 71 sections of

law containing more than 100 unique requirements, including 16 congressional reporting requirements. this year's bill builds on that progress with 12 military justice provisions including every proposal that was offered by senator gillibrand during the committee's markup of this legislation. it is true that sexual assaults have been reduced. that's a fafnlgt that's a fact. and so to somehow allege that nothing has been done, that there has not been -- and that what her proposal is is rejected by literally every member of the military that i know that has years of experience. we cannot remove the commanding officer from the chain of command. and that's what the senator gillibrand's amendment and effort has been, to remove the commanding officer from

responsibility. and i will steadfastly oppose it. and i hope that at some point the senator from new york would acknowledge that we took in her -- in this bill every provision that she offered during the markup of the legislation. so, with respect and appreciation for senator gillibrand's passion and for her dedication on this issue i respectfully disagree and urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call with respect to the cloture vote on the substitute amendment number 1463 be waived, further there be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to each vote in the 2:15 series. the presiding officer: is there objection?

without objection. under the previous order the senate stands in recess until 2:15 p.m. >> the house is also in session today. members were debating funding for intelligence agencies, the cia, national security agency and the defense intelligence agency will begin with consideration for the rule for debating the bill which is a provision that would allow the house to revote a portion of the trade legislation that failed last friday. that could happen anytime up to july 30. you can see the house live on c-span.

>> like many others, first families take vacation time, and like presidents and first ladies, a good read can be the perfect companion for your summer journeys. what better book than one that appears inside a personal life of every first lady in american history? first ladies presidential historians on the lives of 45 iconic american women inspiring stories of fascinating women who survived the scrutiny of the white house. a great summertime read available from public affairs as a hardcover or an e-book for your favorite bookstore or online bookseller. >> another traveler was added to the road to the white house today. businessman donald trump has declared that he is running for president. he made the announcement at the trump tower building in europe shortly after 11 a.m.

>> welcome everybody. today i had the honor of introducing a man who needs no introduction. his legend has been built and his accomplishments are too many to name. batman is my father. [applause] most people strive their entire lives to achieve great success in a single field. my father has succeeded in many. at the highest level and on a global scale. he's enjoyed success in a vast diversity of industry because the common denominator ism. his vision, his brilliance, his passion, his work ethic and his refusal to take no for an

answer. i've enjoyed the good fortune of working alongside my father for 10 years now and i've seen these principles in action daily. i remember him telling me when i was a little girl, ivanka, if you're going to be thinking anyway, you might as well be thinking big. and that's how he approaches any task that he undertakes. he thinks big. my father has employ tens of thousands of people throughout his career and he has inspired them to do extraordinary things. he has the strength to make hard decisions, and motivate those around him to achieve the impossible. he is an optimist who chases big dreams and sees potential where others do not. he leads by example and will outwork anyone in any room.

my father is the opposite of politically correct. he says what he means, and he means what he says. [applause] he is also the best negotiator i have ever met. countless times i've stood by his side and watched him make deals that seem to impossible to get done. he has the discernment to understand what the other party means commitment to get exactly what he wants. my father knows how to be a fierce opponent, but also how to be a very loyal friend. when it comes to building bridges, he can do so figuratively, but also has the rare ability to do so literally on time and under budget. [applause]

throughout his career my father has been repeatedly called upon by local and federal government to step in and save long stalled grossly over budget public projects. whether it's building a skating think in the heart of central park meticulously restored the exterior façade of grand central terminal, enabling the development of new york city's jacob javits convention center, creating a championship public golf course for the city of new york, or redeveloping the iconic but totally underutilized old post office building on pennsylvania avenue and the heart of washington, d.c. my father succeeds time and time again where government has failed before him. i consider myself fortunate to have learned from the best both

as an entrepreneurial and as a parent. my father is a man who is deeply grounded in tradition. erased my siblings and me to work hard and to strive for excellence in all that we do. he taught us that we have a responsibility to make a positive contribution to society. here today, my father is again leading me by example. my generation finds itself at a crossroads. our leadership has been mired in bureaucracy of its own creation. if we don't adapt politically and economically our country will be left behind. to address the many challenges we face, we don't need talk. we need action. we need execution. we need someone who is bold and

independent, with a proven track record of successfully creating and building large and complex and complicated organizations and in the process enabling many many americans to better their lives. i can tell you that there's no better person than my father to have in your corner when you're facing tough opponents or making hard decisions. he is battle tested. he is a dreamer, but perhaps more importantly he is a do or. ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to introduce to you today a man who i have loved and respected my entire life my father donald trump. [applause] ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ >> wow. that is some group of people. thousands. so nice, thank you very much. that's really nice. thank you. it's great to be at trump tower it's great to be in a wonderful city, new york. and it's an honor to have everybody here.

this is beyond anybody's expectations. there's been no crowd like this. and i can tell you some of the candidates they went in they didn't know the air conditioner didn't work. they sweated like dogs. they did know the room was too big because they didn't have anybody there. how are they going to be isis? i don't think it's going to happen. our country is in serious trouble. we don't have victories anymore. we used to have victories but we don't have them. when was the last time anybody saw us beating let's say china, in a trade deal? they kill us. iv china all the time all the time. when did we beat japan at anything? base in their cars over by the

millions -- vase into -- and what do we deal? when was the last time you saw a chevrolet in tokyo? it doesn't exist folks. they beat us all the time. when do we beat mexico at the border? they are laughing at us at our stupidity. and now they are beating us economically. they are not our friend, believe me, but they are killing us economically. the u.s. has become a dumping ground for everybody else's problems. [applause] thank you. it's true. and these are the best in the finest. we mexico sends its people, they are not sending their best. they are not sending you. they are not sending you. they are sending people that have lots of problems, and they are bringing those problems to us.

they are bringing drugs they are bringing crime, their rapists, and some i assume are good people but i speak to border guards and they tell us what we are getting. and it only makes common sense. it only makes common sense. they are sending us not the right people get it's coming from more than mexico. it's coming from all over south and latin america, and it's coming probably probably from the middle east. but we don't know because we have no protection and we have no confidence. we don't know what's happening. it's got to stop and it's got to stop fast. [applause] islamic terrorism is eating up large portions of the middle east. they have become rich. i'm in competition with them. they just built a hotel in syria. can you believe this?

they built a hotel. when i had to build a hotel i could interest. they don't have to pay interest because they took the oil that when we left iraq i said we should have taken. so now i this has the oil. and what they don't have, iran has. and in 19 -- and i will tell you this, and i said it very strongly -- years ago i said come and i love the military i don't want to have the strongest military that we've ever had and we need it now more than ever, but i said don't hit iraq because you're going to totally destabilize the middle east. i ran is going to take over the middle east. iran and somebody also get the oil. and it turns out that iran is now taking over iraq. think of it. iran is taking over iraq and they're taking it over big league. we spent $2 trillion in iraq

2 trillion. we lost thousands of lives thousands in iraq. we have wounded soldiers who i love, i love they are great all over the place. thousands and thousands of wounded soldiers, and we have nothing. we can't even go there. we have nothing. and every time we give iraq equipment, the first time a bullet goes off in the air believe it. last week i read 2317 big vehicles were left behind for the enemies. you would say maybe two, maybe four. 2300 sophisticated vehicles. they ran and the enemy took them.

[inaudible] >> you're right. [applause] last quarter it was just announced our gross domestic product, a sign of strength, right? but not for us. it was below zero. who ever heard of this? it's never below zero. our labor participation rate was the worst since 1978 but think of it. gdp below zero. horrible labor participation rate. and our real unemployed is anywhere from 18-20%. don't believe the 5.6. don't believe it. that's right, a lot of people out there can't get jobs. they can't get jobs because there are no jobs because china has our jobs than mexico has our jobs. they all have our jobs. but the real number, the real

number is anywhere from 18 19, and maybe even 21% and nobody talks about it because it's a statistic that's full of nonsense. [shouting] >> our enemies are getting stronger and stronger i today. and we as a country are getting weaker. even our nuclear arsenal doesn't work. it came out recently they had equipment that's 30 years old. they don't even know if it works and i thought it was horrible when it was broadcast on television because boy, does that send signals to putin and all of the other people that look at us and they say, that is a group of people and that is a nation that truly has no clue. they don't know what they are

doing. they don't know what they are doing. [shouting] >> we have a disaster called the big lie, obamacare obamacare. yesterday they came out that costs are going for people, up 29 39 49 and even 55%. and deductibles are through the roof. you have to get hit by a tractor, literally a tractor to use it. because the deductibles are so hot it's virtually useless. it is a disaster. and remember the $5 billion website. 5 billion we spent on a website to add to this day it doesn't work. a $5 billion website. i have so many websites i have

all over the place. i hire people. they do a website. it costs $3. $5 billion website. [shouting] >> well, you need somebody because politicians are all talk no action. nothing is going to get done. they will not bring us believe me, to the promised land. they will not. as an example i've been on the circuit making speeches, and i hear my fellow republicans and they are wonderful people. i like them. they all want me to support them. they don't not to brag about. they bring the ultimate officer on meeting with we've been in the next week and they don't know, are you running? are you not running? could we had to support? what do we do? how do we do it?

i like them and a huge speeches and they don't talk of jobs and to to talk china. when was the last time you heard -- china is killing us. they are devaluing their currency to a level that you wouldn't believe, that makes it impossible for other companies to compete impossible. they are telling us. but you don't have anybody else. you don't hear it from anybody else. and i watched the speeches -- shop-vac thank you. i watched the speeches of these people -- shop-vac thank you. and they say the sun will rise. the moon will set. all sorts of wonderful things will happen and people are saying what's going on wax i just want a job. just give me a job. i don't need the rhetoric. i wanted job. and that's what's happened and it's going to get worse because remember, obamacare really kicks in and 16 2016.

obama is going to be out playing golf or he might admit on one of my courses. i would invite him i would actually say. i have a discourse in the world discourse in the world so i would do if you want, i one right next to the white house. right in the potomac if you'd like to play that's fine. in fact, i would love like them to leave early and play. that would be a very good thing. but obamacare kicks in in 2016 really big league. it is going to be amazingly destructive. doctors are quitting their i a friend who is a doctor and he said to me the other day, donald, i never saw anything like it. i have more accounts than i have nurses. it's a disaster. my patients are beside themselves. they had a plan that was good. they have no plan now. we have to repeal obamacare and it can be -- and they can be replaced with something much

better for everybody. let it be for everybody. but much better and much less expensive for people and for the government. and we can do it. [shouting] so i've watched the politicians. i've dealt with them all my life. if you can't make a good deal with a politician, then there's something wrong with you. you are certainly not very good. and that's what we have representing us. they will never make america great again. they don't even have a chance. they are controlled fully. they are controlled fully by the lobbyists, by the donors and by the special interests, fully. hey, i have lobbyists i have to

pay. i have lobbyists that can produce anything for me. they are great. but do you know what? it won't happen. it won't happen because we have to stop doing things for some people but for this country it is destroying our country. we have to stop and it has to stop now. now, our country needs -- [shouting] our country needs a truly great leader. and we need a truly great leader now. we need a leader that wrote the art of the deal. we need a leader that can bring back our jobs come can bring back our manufacturing can bring back our military can take care of our veterans. our veterans have been abandoned. [applause] and we also need a cheerleader.

you know when president obama was elected i said well, the one thing i think you will do well, i think you'll be a great cheerleader for the country. i think you would be a great spirit. he was vibrant. .. >> we need somebody that literally will take this country and make

it great again. we can do that, and i will tell you, i love my life. i have a wonderful family. they're saying, dad you're going to do something that's going to be so tough. you know, all of my life i've heard that a truly successful person, a really, really successful person -- and even modestly successful -- cannot run for public office just can't happen. and yet that's the kind of mindset that you need to make this country great again. so, ladies and gentlemen i am officially running -- [cheers and applause] for president of the united states -- [cheers and applause] and we are going to make our country great again! [cheers and applause] ♪

♪ >> it can happen. our country has tremendous potential. we have tremendous people. we have people that aren't working, we have people that have no incentive to work. but they're going to have incentive to work. because the greatest social program is a job. and they'll be proud and they'll love it, and they'll make much more money than they would have ever made. and they'll be doing so well, and we're going to be thriving as a country thriving! it can happen. [cheers and applause] i will be the greatest jobs president that god ever created i tell you that. [cheers and applause]

i'll bring back our jobs from china, from mexico, from japan from so many places. i'll bring back our jobs, and i'll bring back our money. right now, think of this, we owe china $1.3 trillion. we owe japan more than that. so they come in, they take our jobs, they take our money and then they loan us back the money, and we pay them in interest. and then the dollar goes up, so their deal's even better. how stupid are our leaders? how stupid are these politicians to allow this to happen? how stupid are they? >> we want trump! we want trump! we want trump! we want trump! >> i'm going to tell you -- thank you. i'm going to tell you a couple of stories about trade because i'm totally against the trade bill for a number of reasons.

number one the people negotiating it don't have a clue. our president doesn't have a clue. he's a bad negotiator. he's the one that did bergdahl. we get bergdahl, they get five killer terrorists that everybody wanted over there. we get bergdahl. we get a traitor. we get a no-good traitor and they get the five people that they wanted for years. and those people are now back on the battlefield trying to kill us. that's the negotiator we have. take a look at the deal he's making with iran. he makes that deal, israel maybe won't exist very long. it's a disaster, and we have to protect israel. [cheers and applause] so we need people -- i'm a free trader. but the problem with free trade is you need really talented people to negotiate for you. if you don't have talented

people if you don't have great leadership if you don't have people that know business -- not just a political hack that got the job because he made a contribution to a campaign which is the way all jobs just about are gotten -- free trade is terrible. free trade can be wonderful if you have smart people. but we have people that are stupid. we have people that aren't smart, and we have people that are controlled by special interests, and it's just not going to work. so here's a couple of stories. happened recently. a friend of mine is a great manufacturer, and you know china comes over and they dump all their stuff. i buy it. i buy it because, frankly, i have an obligation to buy it. because they devalue their currency so brilliantly they just did it recently, and nobody thought they could do it again. but with all our problems with russia, with all our problems with everything everything, they got away with it again.

and it's impossible for our people here to compete. so i want to tell you this story. friend of mine is a great manufacturer. calls me up a few weeks ago. he's very upset. i said what's your problem? he said, you know, i make great product. i said, i know, i know that, because i buy the product. he said, i can't get it into china. they won't accept it. i sent a boat over, and they actually sent it back. they talked about environmental they talked about all sorts of crap that had nothing to do with it. i said, oh, wait a minute that's terrible. did anyone know this? he said, they do it all the time with other people. i said they send it back? yeah. so i finally got it over there and they charged me a big tariff. they're not supposed to be doing that. i told 'em now, they do charge you tariffs on trucks. ask boeing they wanted all their secrets before they agreed to buy planes from boeing.

hey, i'm not saying they're stupid. i just sold an apartment for $15 million to somebody from china. am i supposed to dislike them? [laughter] i own a big chunk of the bank of america building at 1290 avenue of the americas that i got from china in a war. very valuable. i love china. the biggest bank in the world is from china. you know where their united states headquarters is located? in this building, in trump tower. i love china. people say, oh, you don't like china. no i love them but their leaders are much smarter than our leaders. and we can't sustain ourselves with that. there's too much -- it's like, it's like take the new england patriots and tom brady and have them play your high school football team. that's the difference between china's leaders and our leaders.

they are ripping us. we are rebuilding china. we're rebuilding many countries. china, you go there now roads bridges, schools. you never saw anything like it. they have bridges that make the george washington bridge look like small potatoes. and they're all over the place. we have all the cards. but we don't know how to use them. we don't even know that we have the cards, because our leaders don't understand the game. we could turn off that spigot by charging them tax until they behave properly. now they're going militarily. they're building a military island in the middle of the south china sea. a military island. now, our country could never do that, because we'd have to get environmental clearance. and the environmentalists wouldn't let our -- we would never build in an ocean. they built it in about one year, this massive military port. they're building up their military to a point that is very

scary. you have a problem with isis you have a bigger problem with china. and in my opinion, the new china, believe it or not in terms of trade is mexico. so this man tells me about the manufacturing, i say that's a terrible story, i hate to hear it. but i have another one ford. so mexico takes a company, car company that was going to build in tennessee, rips it out. everybody thought the deal was dead, reported in the "wall street journal" recently. everybody thought it was a done deal. it's going in, and that's going to be it, going into temperature. great state, great people. all of a sudden at the last moment, this big car manufacturer foreign announces they're not going to tennessee. their going to spend -- they're going to spend their billion dollars in mexico instead. not good. now ford announces a few weeks ago that ford is going to build

a $2.5 billion car and truck and parts manufacturing plant in mexico. 2.5 billion. it's going to be one of the largest in the world. ford good company. so i announced that i'm running for president. i would -- [applause] one of the early things i would do, probably before i even got in, and i wouldn't even use -- you know, i have, i know the smartest negotiators in the world. i know the good ones, i know the bad ones i know the overrated ones. you've got a lot that are overrated. they get good stories because the newspapers get buffaloed. but they're not good. i know the best negotiators in the world, and i'd put 'em one for each country. believe me, folks, we would do very, very well. very, very well. [applause] but i wouldn't even waste my

time with this one. i would call up the head of ford who i know if i was president. i'd say congratulations. i understand that you're building a nice $2.5 billion car factory in mexico and that you're going to take your cars and sell them to the united states. zero tax just across the board. and you say to yourself, how does that help us? where is that good? it's not. so i'd a say congratulations that's the good news. let me give you the bad news. every car and every truck and every part manufactured in this plant that comes across the border, we're going to charge you a 35% tax. [cheers and applause] okay? and that tax is going to be paid simultaneously with the transaction, and that's it. now, here's what's going to happen. if it's not me in the position,

it's one of these politicians that we're running against, you know, the 400 people that we're -- and here's what's going to happen. they're not so stupid. they know it's not a good thing. and they may even be upset by it. but then they're going to get a call from their donors or probably from the lobbyists for ford and say you can't do that to ford, because ford takes care of me, and i take care of you and you can't do that to ford. and guess what? no problem. they're going to build in mexico, they're going to take away thousands of jobs, that's very bad for us. so under president trump here's what would happen. [cheers and applause] the head of ford will call me back, i would say within an hour after i told him the bad news, but it could be he'd want to be cool and he'll wait until the next day. you know, they want to be a little cool. and he'll say please, please,

please he'll beg for a little while, and i'll say, no interest. then he'll call all sorts of political people and i'll say sorry, people no interest, because i don't need anybody's money. [applause] i'm using my own money. i'm not using lobbyists, i'm not using donors, i don't care. i'm really rich. [applause] and by the way i'm not even saying that in a brag -- that's the kind of mindset that's the kind of thinking you need for this country. so because we've got to make the country rich. it sounds accuracy. somebody said, oh, that's crass. it's not crass. we've got $18 trillion in debt, we've got nothing but problems we've got a military that needs equipment all over the place. we've got nuclear weapons that are obsolete. we've got nothing, we've got social security that's going to be destroyed if somebody like me doesn't bring money into the country. all these other people want to cut the hell out of it. i'm to not going to cut it at all. i'm going to bring money in, and

we're going to save it. [applause] but here is what's going to happen. after i'm called my 30 friends of mine who contributed to different campaigns after i'm called by all of the special interests and by the donors and by the lobbyists -- and they have zero chance at convincing me zero -- i'll get a call the next day from the head of ford. he'll say please reconsider. i'll say no. he'll say, mr. president we've decided to move the plant back to the united states. we're not going to build it in mexico. they have no choice. [applause] they have no choice. there are hundreds of things like that. i'll give you another example. saudi arabia, they make a billion dollars a day a billion dollars a day. i love the saudis. many are in this building. they make a billion dollars a

day. whenever they have problems, we send over the ships we send -- we're going to protect -- what are we doing? they've got nothing but money. if the right person asked them, they'd pay a fortune. they wouldn't be there except for us. and believe me, you look at the border with yemen, you remember obama a year ago yemen was a great victory. two weeks later the place was blown up. everybody -- and they kept our -- they always keep our equipment. they always keep our equipment. we ought to send some real junk because, frankly, it would be -- we ought to send our surplus. we're always losing this gorgeous, brand new stuff. but look at that border with saudi arabia. do you really think that these people are interested in yemen? saudi arabia without us is gone. they're gone. and i'm the one that made all of the right predictions about

iraq. you know, all of these politicians that i'm running against now -- it's so nice to say i'm running as opposed to if i run, if i run. i'm running. [cheers and applause] but all of these politicians i'm running against now, they're trying to dissociate -- i mean, you look at bush, it took him five days to answer the question on iraq. he couldn't answer the question he didn't know. i said, is he intelligent? then i looked at reek owe, he was -- rubio, he was unable to answer the question. he didn't know. how are these people going to lead us? how are we going to go back and make it great again? we can't. they don't have a clue. they can't lead us. they can't. they can't even answer simple questions. it was terrible but saudi arabia is in big big trouble. now, thanks to fracking and other things, the oil is all over the place. and i used to say it, there are ships at sea -- and this was during the worst crisis -- that

were loaded up with the oil. and the cartel kept the price up because, again, they were¿ smarter than or leaders. they were smarter than our leaders. there is so much wealth out there that can make our country so rich again and therefore make it great again, because we need money. we're dying. we're dying. we need money. we have to do it. and we need the right people. so ford will come back, they'll all come back, and i will say this, this is going to be an election, in my opinion, that's based on competence. >> yes! >> somebody said -- [applause] thank you darling. somebody said to me the other day, a reporter, very nice reporter, but, mr. mr. trump you're not a nice person. >> we don't need nice! >> that's true. but actually i am. i think i'm a nice person.

does my family like me? i think so. look at my family. i'm proud of my family. by the way, speaking of my family melania barron, kai donny, dunn, vanessa tiffany -- aye vanning ca did a great job did she do a great job? [cheers and applause] eric laura, i'm very proud of my family, they're a great family. [applause] so the reporter said to me the other day but mr. trump you're not a nice person. how can you get people to vote for you? i said, i don't know. i said i think that, number one, i am a nice person. i give a lot of money away to charities and other things. i think i'm actually a very nice person. but i said, this is going to be an election that's based on competence. because people are tired of

these nice people, and they're tired of being ripped off by everybody in the world and they're tired of spending more money on education than any nation in the world per capita, than any nation in the world and we're 26th in the world. twenty-five countries are better than us at education. and some of them are, like, third world country. but we're becoming a third world country because of our infrastructure, our airports, our roads everything. so one of the things i did and i said you know what i'll do? i'll do it. a lot of people said he'll never run. number one, he won't want to give up his lifestyle. they're right about that, but i'm doing it. number two is prime a private company, and when you run, you have to announce and certify to all sorts of governmental authorities your net worth. so i said, that's okay. i'm proud of my net worth.

i've done an amazing job is. i started off -- thank you. i started off in a small office with my father in brooklyn and queens and my father said -- and i love my father. i learned so much. he was a great negotiator. i learned so much just sitting at his feet playing with blocks, listening to him negotiate with subcontractors. but i learned a lot. but he used to say donald, don't go into manhattan. that's the big leagues. we don't know anything about that. don't do it. i said, dad i gotta go into manhattan. i gotta build those big buildings. i've gotta do it, dad i've gotta do it. and after four or five years in brooklyn i ventured into manhattan and built a lot of great deals. and i did 'em early and young. and now i'm building all over the world, and i love what i'm doing. but they all said, a lot of be ton kits on -- the pundits on

television well donald will never run. and one of the main reasons is he's private and he's probably not as successful as everybody thinks. so i said to myself, you know nobody's ever going to know unless i run, because i'm really proud of my success. i really am. [applause] i've employed, i've employed tens of thousands of people over my lifetime. that means medical that means education, that means everything. so a large accounting firm and my accountants have been working for months because it's big and complex, and they've put together a statement a financial statement. it's a summary but everything will be filed eventually with the government. and we don't need extensions or anything. we'll be filing it right on time. [applause] we don't need anything.

and it was even reported incorrectly yesterday because they said he had assetted of nine billion. i said, no, that's the wrong number. not assets. so they put together this, and before i say it, i have to say this: i made it the old-fashioned way. it's real estate, you know? it's real estate. it's labor and it's union -- good and some bad -- and lots of people atlanta in unions -- that aren't in unions and it's all over the place and building all over the world. and i have assets, big accounting firm, one of the most highly respected $9,240,000,000. [applause] and i have liabilities of about $500 -- that's long-term debt, very low interest rates. in fact one of the big banks came to to me, said, donald can,

you don't have enough borrowings. could we loan you $4 billion? i said, i don't need it. i don't want it. i've been there. i don't it. but in two seconds they'd give me whatever i wanted. and now with the increase, it'll be well over $10 billion. but here a total net worth of $8 -- net worth. not assets, not liability -- a net worth. after all debt, after all expenses, the greatest assets, trump tower 1290 avenue of the americas. bank of america building in san francisco. 40 wall street. sometimes referred to as the trump building right opposite the new york -- many other places all over world. so the total is $8,737,540,000. [cheers and applause]

now, i'm not doing that i'm not doing that to brag because, you know what? i don't have to brag. believe it or not. i'm doing that to say that that's the kind of thinking our country needs. we need that thinking. we have the the opposite thinking. we have losers. we have losers. we have people that don't have it. we have people that are morally corrupt. we have people that are selling this country down the drain. so i put together the statement, and the only reason i'm telling you about it today is because we really do have to get going. because if we have another three or four years, you know, we're at 18 trillion now, we're soon going to be at 20 trillion. according to the economists, who i'm not big believers in but, nevertheless, this is what they're saying, that 24 trillion -- we're very close --

that's the point of no run. $24 trillion. we will be there soon. that's when we become greece. that's when we become a country that's unsalvageable. and we're going to be there very soon. we're going to be there very soon. >> [inaudible] >> so just to sum up, i would do various things very quickly. i would repeal and replace the big lie obamacare. [cheers and applause] i would build a great wall -- and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me. and i'll build them very inexpensively. i will build a great, great wall on our southern border and i will have mexico pay for that wall. mark my words. [applause] nobody would be tougher on isis than donald trump. [cheers and applause] nobody. i will find within our military,

i will find the general patton, or i will find general macarthur. i will find the right guy. i will find the guy that's going to take that military and make it really work. nobody nobody will be pushing us around. [applause] i will stop iran from getting nuclear weapons and we won't be using a man like secretary kerry that has absolutely no concept of negotiation, who's making a horrible and laughable deal who's just being tapped along that as they make weapons right now and then goes into a bicycle race at 72 years old and falls and breaks his leg. e won't be doing that. and i promise i will never be in a bicycle race. that i can tell you. [applause] i will immediately terminate president obama's illegal

executive order on immigration. immediately. [applause] fully support and back up the second amendment. [applause] now, it's very interesting today i heard it through stupidity in a very, very hard core prison -- interestingly named clinton -- [laughter] two vicious murderers two vicious people escaped. and nobody knows where they are. and a woman was on television this morning, and she said, you know mr. trump -- and she was telling other people and i actually called her. but she said, you know, mr. trump, i always was against guns. i didn't want guns. and now since this happened it's up in the prison area, my husband and i are finally in agreement, because he wanted the guns. we now have a gun on every

table. we're ready to start shooting. i said, very interesting. so protect the second amendment. [applause] and end common core. common core should -- it is a disaster. [applause] bush is totally in favor of common core. i don't see how he can possibly get the nomination. he's weak on immigration, he's in favor of common core. how the hell can you vote for this guy? you just can't do it. we have to end -- education has to be local. rebuild the country's infrastructure. [applause] nobody can do that like me. believe me. it will be done on time, on budget way below cost way below what anyone ever thought. i look at these roads being built all over the country and i say i can build those things for one-third. what they do is unbelievable, how bad.

you know, we're building on pennsylvania avenue the old post office, we're converting it into one of the world's great hotels. going to be the best hotel in washington d.c. we got it from the general services administration in washington. the obama administration. we got it. it was the most highly sought after -- or one of them -- but i think the most highly sought after project in the history of general services. we got it people were shocked trump got it. well, i got it for two reasons. number one, we're really good. number two we had a really good plan. and i'll add in a third, we had a great financial statement. the general services people wanted to do a great job, and they wanted to make sure it got built. so we have to redo our infrastructure our bridge our roads, our airports. you cointo laguardia -- come

into laguardia airport it's like we're in a third world country. they throw down asphalt and -- you look at these airports, we are like a third world country. and i come in from china, and i come in from qatar and different places, and they have the most incredible airports in the world. you come back to this country and you have lax -- disaster -- you have all of these disastrous airports. we have to rebuild our infrastructure. save medicare, medicaid and social security without cuts. [applause] have to do it. get rid of fraud, get rid of the waste and abuse but save it. people have been paying in for years, and now many of these candidates want to cut it. you save it by making the united states, by making us rich again, by taking back all of the money that's being lost. renegotiate our foreign trade deals.

[applause] reduce our $18 trillion in debt because, believe me, we're in a bubble. we have artificially low interest rates, we have a stock market that, frankly, has been good to me, but i still hate to to see what's happening. we have a stock market that is so bloated, be careful of a bubble. because what you've seen in the past might be small potatoes compared to what happens. so be very, very careful. and strengthen our military and take care of our vets. so, so important. [applause] sadly, the american dream is dead. >> bring it back! >> but if i get elected president, i will bring it back

bigger and better and stronger than ever before, and we will make america great again! thank you. thank you very much. [cheers and applause] thank you. [cheers and applause] ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ [cheers and applause] ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ >> this weekend the c-span cities tour is partnered with comcast to learn about the history and literary life of key west florida. earnest hemingway wrote several of his novels at this home in key west. >> they found this house for sale, they bought it for $8,000 in 1931, and pauline actually converted this hay loft into his

first formal writing studio. be here he fell in love with fishing, he fell in love with the clarity of his writing how fast he was producing the work. he knocked out a farewell to arms in just two weeks when arriving in key west. he once had a line that said if you really want to write start with one true sentence. >> for a true writer, each book should be a new beginning, for he tries again for something that is beyond the pale. he should always try for something that has never been done or that ores have -- others have tried and failed. >> key west is also where president harry truman sought refuge from washington. >> president truman regarded the big white house as the great white jail. he felt he was constantly under everyone's eye, and so by coming to key west, he could come with his closest staff let down his hair. sometimes some of the staff would let their beards grow for a couple days. they certainly at times used

off-colored stories and they certainly could have a glass of bourbon and, you know visit back and forth without any scrutiny from the press. a sportswear company sent a case of hawaiian shirts to the president with the thought that if the president's wearing our shirt, with other going to sell a lot of -- we're going to sell a lot of shirts. so president truman wore those free shirts that year and then organized what they called the loud shirt contest, and that was the official uniform of key west. >> watch all of our events from key west saturday at 5 p.m. eastern on c-span2's booktv and sunday afternoon at two on american history tv on c-span3. >> and scott wong joins us, he's a senior staff writer for "the hill." he has some information about what's going on with the trade legislation on capitol hill and the future of it in congress

this year. and, scott the house had initially planned to hold a revote by today on trade adjustment assistance. that failed last week and your article "the house punts on trade," what are they planning to do instead? >> well, they're trying to buy themselves a little bit more time to get that worker's aid bill across the finish line. if they could do that, that would send the entire trade package to president obama's desk for his signature. now, we were expecting this week -- in fact today -- that they were going to vote again on this workers' aid program but instead they've decided to try to extend until the end of july, july 30th, to give themselves a chance to and a little bit more time for the president to get his votes in order, for

republicans to try to grow their vote in order to get this thing across the finish line. >> host: and how does the possibility of a revote get to the house floor in the first place, and how have members reacted? >> guest: well, so far everyone's pretty much holding their fire. the way it's going to get to the floor is today there will be a vote on the rule, on a rule on a separate unrelated intelligence bill intelligence bill that would allow republicans to extend, as i mentioned until july 30th to give them an opportunity to take this up once again. and, you know, the idea is that by giving themselves a little bit more time, they can perhaps twist a few more arms the president can hopefully reengage with some members of his party. now, it's going to be a very tall task to to try to flip roughly 85 votes in order to get

this thing to the finish line. but the idea is that maybe republicans can get 40 and president obama can get an additional 40 and maybe get close to that number. >> host: and on capitol hill we've seen a number of meetings, number of press conferences going on. speaker boehner talking with his house republicans. he talked to you and some other reporters after the meeting. you sent out a tweet: boehner says he had several conversations yesterday with president obama to move trade tpa, ahead. what else did the speaker say about getting trade done this year and about votes against it from his house republicans? >> guest: well, as we saw last week, a number of house republicans -- roughly three dozen -- voted against the rule that basically structured this trade package. and nearly scuttled the entire package. and what we heard from the speaker today what he told his

conference, his gop conference in a closed door meeting this morning was he was not happy. he was not thrilled that republicans were voting against the team in trying to vote down the rule. and it's generally a procedural vote. it generally passes, you know, by wide margins. but the rule nearly killed the entire bill last week, and the speaker made his disappointment very known. >> host: now, you also wrote about three ways that the gop could possibly save this bill, and briefly what are they, and why is it important that this pass this year, the trade? >> guest: well, it's important that it passes soon, specifically fast track authority which would give the president broader authority to get a major trade deal with, involving 12 pacific rim nations done. i mean, the reason why we're

under the gun at this point is because the president doesn't have much time left in his term in his second term. very soon he'll be a lame duck president. some are, in fact, are already calling him a lame duck president. and so this is, number one about the president's priority getting a big legislative win before he wraps up his time in office, and this is also a big priority for republicans like speaker boehner and paul ryan. and so they feel like they're under the gun that they need to act quickly before 2016 and the presidential race really kicks into gear. >> host: we'll keep following your tweets, we can find you @scottwong dc, and your reporting, thehill.com. thank you sot. >> guest: great. thank you very much. >> and because of the reluctance of some republicans to get onboard with leadership on trade legislation, three members have been booted off the gop whip

team as leaders crack down. the national journal reporting that representatives lummis of wyoming, pearce of new mexico and franks of arizona are being punished for defying leaders on the vote after they sided with gop rebels to vote against a rule governing debate on a trade bill. congresswoman lummis, a member of the house freedom caucus one of the highest ranking and most intransigent members. house majority whip steve scalise had said earlier in the year he would not tolerate leaders voting against rules. you can read more online nationaljournal.com. the senate still in recess for weekly party lunches, returning at 2:15 p.m. eastern about 30 minutes away. ..

mrs. gillibrand: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: mr. president, i rise to urge my colleagues to support my amendment number 1578, the military justice imriewflt improvement act, to ensure that survivors of military sexual assault have u have access to an unbiased, trained military judicial system. last year despite the support of 55 senators a coalition banning the entire ideological spectrum including both the majority and minority leader our village great an independent military justice system free of inherent biases and complex of interest within the chain of command was filibustered by this body.

but as we said then, we will not walk away. the brave men and women in uniform who are defending this nation deserve a vote. that is our duty. it is our oversight role. it's congress' responsibility to act. if the brave survivors of sexual assault are our sons daughters husbands wives, and being betrayed by the grace military on earth. we owed them that at the very least. over the last few years congress has forced the military to make mean incremental changes to address this crisis. after two decades of complete failure and lip service 20 tolerance, the military now says essentially trust as of this time, we've got it. they misrepresent data who claim their mission is accomplished, but when you dig below the surface of their top lines and you will find that the assault

rate is exactly where it was in 2010 an average of 52 cases every single day. and three out of four servicemember survivors still don't think it's worth the risk of coming forward to report crimes committed against them. 75% don't trust the current system. one in seven victims were assaulted by someone in the chain of command. and 60% of the cases a supervisor or unit leader is responsible for either sexual harassment our sexual discrimination. this is not the climate that our military deserves. it is no surprise then that one in three survivors believed that reporting would hurt their career. for those who do report, they are more likely than not to experience retaliation. despite a much touted reforms

that made retaliation a crime, the dod made zero progress on improving that 52% retaliation rate that we had in 2012. according to a human rights watch report, the dod cannot provide a single example of the series to splinter action taken against those who retaliate against the victim of sexual assault. and sexual assault survivor is 12 times more likely to suffer retaliation and see their of intricate convicted of a sex offense. and in my close review of 107 cases from the largest domestic military bases one from each service, and 2013 i found that nearly half of those who did move forward and report ended up dropping out of their cases. survivors still have little faith in this system and under

any metric the system remains plagued with distrust and does not provide fair and just process that our survivors, our men and women in our military deserve. simply put, the military has not held up to the standard post by general dempsey one year ago when he said we are on the clock if you will get the president said to us in the summer you've got about a year to review this thing. and if we haven't been able to demonstrate where making a difference, you know then we deserve to be held to the scrutiny and standard. i urge my colleagues to hold the military to that higher standard. enough is enough with the excuses and the false promises. and just yesterday i received a letter from a mother of a survivor of military sexual assault who is serving active duty. she says, the reason i'm writing on her behalf is because i fear she will be retaliated against for speaking out.

while the military is on the hill lobbying senators not to support the military justice improvement act, i am asking you to take a stand with survivors and their families. these military lobbyists have good intentions are however i am doubtful any of them would represent my perspective. i have experienced anguish of a child who has been raped by another servicemember, a fellow brother in arms who she should have been able to trust. please support the military justice improvement act of a commonsense law that significant groups of military justice system, our military sons and daughters who survived these heinous crimes carry high rates of those dreaded stress disorder and suicide. i believe that at the mjia path that could save lives and will positively affect the lives of the survivors of the victims and their families. no one should have to worry about retaliation from their chain of command when they

report these crimes. retaliation happens so often that majority of these assault go unreported. every military victim of sexual assault deserves due process. professional treatment by a trained military individual and equal opportunity seek and receive justice. our military has promised improvements and has had adequate time in which to improve, but the numbers show that the military has failed to live up to its promise. the department of defense has admitted it made no progress since 2012. it's time for the chain of command to be removed from decision-making in sexual assault cases and replaced by those trained nonbiased military personnel educated in the law and experienced in handling sexual assault cases. further mjia specific parts of sexual assault and other serious crimes with the remainder of military crimes being left in the chain of command. please hold of the military to a higher standard by voting yes to

an unbiased military system. we have to listen to our victims, our survivors, the men and women who will give their lives to this country who will sacrifice anything for this country. america's military, if they do these reforms we'll have dangerous criminals and far more heroes. the brave men and women we've sent to war to keep us safe deserve nothing less than a justice system equal to their sacrifice. i listening to the victims, we can deliver that. i urge everyone here listen to our brave survivors. support our bill and do the right thing. i now would like to yield the floor to one of the authors of the military justice improvement act, senator from iowa. >> thank you senator gillibrand, for leadership in

this area over a long period of time and i add my voice to support for a minute. she's been a great leader on the issue -- amendment. as you see she's got a lot of passion, docket pursuit of justice. last year when i spoke in favor of this nature, i made the point that this was not a new issue that required further study or incremental reforms. we have been hearing promises for years and years that they would be zero tolerance, and a real crackdown on military sexual assault. last year the national defense authorization act included a lot of commonsense reforms, but it did not include any fundamental reform of the military justice system. we were told to give these new

adjustments to the current system a chance to work and come back next year. at the time i made a point that we had already tried working within the current system, to no avail. i'm not one to advocate for major sweeping reform, if less will address the problem. but what we've been doing has not worked. last year after congress passed a package of more modest reforms but not our military justice improvement act amendment, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff general dempsey said quote we've been given about a year to demonstrate both that we would treat this with the urgency it deserves and that we can take and we can turn the trend lines in a more positive direction end of quote. he made clear that if we didn't see real progress, he wouldn't

stand in the way of more major reforms. well, we have not seen significant movement. in terms of the number of sexual assault cases and a shocking rate of retaliation against those who report, we simply don't see progress. that's probably because the current system is part of the problem. the fact that victims of sexual assault cannot turn to an independent system to get justice, combined with a very real fear of retaliation acts as a terrible deterrent to reporting sexual assault. in sexual assault cases are not reported they then cannot be prosecuted. if sexual assault isn't prosecuted, it leads to predators remain in the military and a perception that this sort

of activity is going to be tolerated. by allowing the situation to continue we are putting at risk the men and women who have volunteered to place their lives on the line. we are also seriously damaging military morale and readiness. taking prosecutions out of the hands of commanders in giving into professional prosecutors who are independent of the chain of command will help ensure impartial justice for the men and women of our armed forces. this would in no way take away the ability of commanders to punish troops under their command for military infractions. commanders also can and should be held accountable for the climate under their command. but the point here is a sexual

assault is a law enforcement matter, not a military one. this is in some reform -- this isn't some reform that came out of the blue peter. we have an advisory committee appointed by the secretary of defense himself, came out in support of reforms. on september 27, 2013 the defense advisory committee on women in the services i think it goes by the acronym dacowis or something like that. this committee voted in support of each of the coin of the military justice improvement act amendment. dacowis was created way back in 1951 by then secretary of defense george c. marshall. the committee is composed of civilian and retired military men and women who were appointed by the secretary of defense to provide advice and

recommendations on matters and policies relating to the recruitment and retention of treatment employment immigration, and well being of highly qualified professional women in the armed forces. historically, this committee's recommendations have been very instrumental in effecting changes to laws and policies pertaining to military women. the bottom line is this isn't some advocacy group for fly-by-night panel. it's a long-standing advisory committee hand-picked by the secretary of defense. and it supports the substance of our amendment to a t. we've tried reforming the current system and it didn't work. when we are talking about something as serious and life altering as sexual assault, we

cannot afford to wait any longer. so i urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this amendment, but this isn't come as we approach this from the outside it gives me an opportunity to reiterate what i see so wrong in so many bureaucracies. we are always promise changed -- promise of change but as i look back over a couple three decades of this problem on the culture of the various bureaucracies nothing really happens from within. it's got to happen from without. and in this particular case of national defense being the number one responsibility to the federal government, this change has to happen from without because it hasn't happened from within, regardless of the promises. i yield the floor. >> the senator from missouri.

>> mr. president, first by asking in this consent of major rick trimble, army fell in my office -- the remainder of the year. >> without objection. >> mr. president, last week gathered here to debate this issue, and i think is so important to point out that anyone in this body has the same hardware comes to this issue. and that is that we want to make sure that victims that are unsolved in our military are protected and supported, that the system is highly trained and professional, that perpetrators have due process but also are put in prison if the system finds them guilty. the difference is, an honest policy differences over which system would better accomplish those goals. now we have agreed on so much and i think it's important to point out the work of the

congress has done reforming sexual assault and military. laughter we had over 26 different provisions that were enacted into law. this year we haven't stopped. we have 13 more provisions in this piece of legislation. there's a disagreement over which system would protect victims better. the historic reforms commanders have been stripped from their ability to overturn conviction. they are being held accountable under rigorous new standards and oversight. every victim who now reports reports now get their own independent lawyer to protect the rights and fight for their inches. it's now a crime for any member to retaliate against a victim who reports a sexual assault. dozens and dozens more. and yes, there were panels that looked at this issue. one that was referenced by my colleague from iowa was dacowits. they heard no witnesses, from expert witnesses. they are a brief presentation by

myself and senator gillibrand but they didn't spend days on it or as the system's response to put in place by this congress spent weeks and weeks examining this. heard from dozens and dozens of witnesses from every side of the issue. and by the way, this panel was made up of the majority of civilians, majority women. and it voted overwhelmingly to reject an approach that removes commanders from their responsibility and their duties and, therefore, their accountability. one is a woman who runs the victims and at the department of justice for the entire country. her quote i went into this thinking senator gillibrand legislation made sense, but when you have a facts it just doesn't hold up. she was joined by a liberal icon, a feminist icon, who was the author of the rate steel

statue here in the united states congress and when she served as a representative. she spoke out saying what she understood the system and understood the facts she agreed that keeping command accountable was crucial. now, have we seen progress? it is one thing to anecdotal information. it is another to have a statistically valid survey. the same survey that shows that retaliation is still a stubborn problem that we can't give up on also shows in their important data. to what you're going to alley-oop daschle argued that retaliation is a problem, you are lying on the very same survey that tells us the following. incidents are down. that's meaningful progress. dropping 29% just in the last two years. reporting continues to go up which was our stated goal as we begin these reforms. reports are up 70% from 2012.

back in 2012 only one in 10 victims were reporting. we have it down to one in four. that is not spin. that is facts. these victims are coming forward as if they have renewed confidence that they will have support, that they would get good information. and if the system is not stacked against them. increase reported occurred in all categories. the number of unrestricted reports are up and restricted report to a. and importantly a number of reports that victims converted from restricted to unrestricted. furthermore they went around the country and did focus groups with victims. this was a rant not the military, not the department of justice. this was the rand corporation that is well known for its ability to get statistical

information to went around the country did focus groups, 11 different groups with just victims. as victims to come forward and participant in the survey. and it should and this is important mr. president 82% agreed that their unit commanders supported them. 73% were satisfied with their unit commanders response and 73% said they would recommend others report if they were victims of sexual assault in this is really important. the gillibrand and then it does nothing to combat retaliation. -- gillibrand amendment to the recent survey found the reported retaliation does not, from commanders to it comes from peter's. this is a cultural problem we have to get after. and certainly i stand ready to work with senator gillibrand senator grassley all my colleagues to look and see what we have to do to get after this peer-to-peer retaliation can which was a vast majority of was reported and finally the gillibrand amendment actually weakens punishment for the crime

of retaliation by moving retaliation from article 92 to article 93 of the ucmj it would actually reduce the maximum punishment for this crime. and it finally prohibits the resources necessary to get this problem. the amendment says we cannot add any additional resources to get after this. historic reforms have been made. they are working based on data. and talking to dozens and dozens of prosecutors and untold victims. as a former prosecutor who cares nothing more, just about nothing more than taking care of victims and making sure they have due process and a respected and defer to. i must urge this body to reject the gillibrand approach which removes commanders from being held accountable but they must be held accountable. thank you, mr. president. i urge them to vote on the gillibrand amendment.

>> mr. president? >> the senator from new york. >> i like to respond to the last point and the first point that my colleague made, that some of this reform makes commanders less responsible speech if they said it provides the all time for debate is expired. >> i ask unanimous consent to continue the debate for five minutes. >> is there objection? without objection. >> thank you. so this statement of some of commanders are removed from responsibility and that we are not keeping commanders responsible that couldn't be farther from the truth. today, commanders are the only ones responsible for good order of discipline come at every level to agenda commander is responsible for good order and discipline. every aspect of the chain of command is responsible. it is their job to train troops come to maintain good order and

discipline, to prevent rates and crimes being committed under their command, and to punish retaliation. they have failed in that duty. in his chain of command. 97% of commanders are responsible and do not have the convening authority that would like to get to prosecuted. 97% their jobs have been changed one, so this is your making commanders less responsible is a false statement that has no bearing. in fact, they are 100% responsible for good order and discipline for training the troops, to prevent this race and to prosecute retaliation. and in one year mr. president they have been unnoticed for years about this, 25 years. we've got this zero tolerance. they are super unnoticed now. and one june not one prosecution or retaliation. under article 15, this site can do something about retaliation. this site this site decide. only 3% have the right for convening authority and that 3%

needsneeds to be moved to so it was actually a lawyer, who strengthen the knows how to weigh evidence and to make the right decision. that's not what happened today. so right now his supervisor and unit leader in 60% of the cases where there is alleged gender discrimination or sexual harassment of its the unit leader committing it. one and seven of the alleged rapists are one of these commanders, chain of command. so there is a perspective by a survivor at his chain of command does not have my back. so i'd like to give it to another chain of command from senior military prosecutors to make the decision so her perspective can be someone's got my back. this chain of command may well be tainted for her if her unit commander is harassing her and her rapist is in the chain of command that they need to professional at the system. we are trying to make the military the best prosecutorial system in the world, and they can do this nation. we need to give them the tools.

having this current status quo the status quo that's been in charge of no retaliation and no break for 25 years is failing to anti-the same rate of retaliation we had two years ago when the commander said he must trust us to do this everyone of these commanders does not have convening authority, but everyone of these commanders could have stopped retaliation. and when you say peer-to-peer, it is dishonest the 30% of the cases of retaliation are administrative, 30% are professional. on a committee can minister administrative or professional retaliation. this culture must change, and if congress doesn't take the responsibility to hold the department of defense accountable, no one will. i yield the floor. >> the senator from arizona. >> this coal your 15 ndaa passed last year, could 34 new provisions dealing with sexual assault. commanders have barely had time to intimate these provisions let alone assess their effectiveness.

fiscal year 14 into a included the most comprehensive set of changes to the uniform code of military justice since 1968. cumulative. the last three ndaa included 71 sexes of law containing more than 100 unique requirements including 16 congressional reporting requirements. this year's bill builds on the progress with 12 military justice provisions including every proposal that was authored by senator gillibrand during the committee's markup of this legislation. it is true that sexual assault have been reduced. that's a factor that's a fact. and so to somehow allege that nothing has been done that there has not been and that what her proposal is is rejected by literally every member of the military that i know that has years of

experience. we cannot remove the commanding officer from the chain of command, and that's what the senator gillibrand's amendment an effort has been, to remove the commanding officer from responsibility and i will steadfastly opposed it. and i hope that at some point the senator from new york would acknowledge that we took in her in this bill, every provision that she offered during the market for the legislation. so with respect and appreciation for senator gillibrand's passion and for her dedication on this issue, i respectfully disagree and urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. >> that they'd from earlier in the us in on the defense authorization bill and in particular on an by kristen gillibrand, senator from new york dealing with military

sexual assault. the senate will gavel back in momentarily, 2:15 p.m. eastern and people vote on that amendment to continue more debate. that's all coming up live momentarily on c-span2. >> this weekend c-span cities tour as part of with comcast to about the history of the great life of key west, florida. ernest hemingway wrote several of his novels at his home in key west. >> they found his house for sale and bought for $8000 in 1931 come and paulding converted this hayloft into his first formal writing studio. >> here he fell in love fishing, fell in love with the click of this writing, how fast is producing the work. in fact, he knocked out the first rough draft of a farewell to arms in just two weeks when writing in key west. he wants out of life is that if you really want to write, start with one true sentence. so a true writer can't each book should be a new beginning or he tries again for something that is beyond attainment.

he should always try for something that had never been done over that others have tried and to have failed. >> key west is where president harry truman sought refuge from washington. spent president truman regarded the big white house as the great white jail. he felt he was constantly on everyone's i can't answer by committee key west he could come with his closest staff, let down his hair, sometimes some of his staff would let their beards grow for a couple of days. they certainly had time to do off-color stories and they certainly could have a glass of bourbon and visit back and forth without any scrutiny from the press. >> a sportswear company sent a case of hawaiian shirt to the president with the thought that if the president is what our shirt we will sell a lot of shirts, and so president truman wore those free shirts at first year and then organize what they

called a loud shirt contest come and that was the official uniform of key west. >> watch all of our events from key west saturday at 5 p.m. eastern on c-span2's booktv, and sunday afternoon at two on an american history tv on c-span3. >> live look at the u.s. capitol with the senate will gavel again next for more debate on the defense authorization bill and an amendment about next, the military sexual assault amendment by senator gillibrand of new york. live to the senate floor here on c-span2. ernst. mrs. ernst: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mrs. ernst: will the chair notify me after 30 seconds? the presiding officer: the senator will be so notified after 30 seconds. mrs. ernst: thank you. colleagues, just a few brief points on this amendment. we are just providing the administration the option to get arms directly to the kurds.

the kurds currently are providing refuge to over 1.6 million refugees from iraq and syria, many of them are ethnic and religious minorities such as christians. the peshmerga have shown the ability to be effective on the battlefield against isis, and this ernst-boxer amendment is a companion bill to the one presented by representatives royce and engell in the house. i would urge my colleagues to support this. the presiding officer: the senator has used her 30 seconds. mrs. ernst: i would yield to senator boxer. mrs. boxer: thank you mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i'm delighted to team up with the good senator here because this is a very modest amendment that just puts us in line with our colleagues: the united kingdom germany turkey france, australia and others who already are directly arch the kurds. -- arming the kurds. the president's policy that i absolutely support is we're

going to take this fight to isis but we're not going to have combat boots on the ground. we're going to help strategically with airstrikes. these are the people who are taking it day after day deaths and blood and wounds. that's the least we can do is support this amendment. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. reed: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: mr. president i oppose the ernst amendment. it would undermine what has been the fundamental policy of the united states going back to the last administration, a unified sovereign iraq. this amendment would send a signal to the iraqis that are we are supporting the kurds directly, not supporting a unified sovereign iraq. that would complicate our efforts against isil. it would complicate our efforts in the region. and also it is a situation now where the efforts shifting into anbar proirches in -- proirches in -- anbar province in the sunni

area. the prime minister of anbar was here a few weeks ago indicating he was accepting of the arrangements. if this amendment passes the perception will be that the united states is now not trying to unify or help the iraqis unify but put a degree of separation between an autonomy, and that would be a mistake. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the amendment. mrs. ernst: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the amendment is not agreed to. the yeas were 54, the nays are 45. under the previous order, there will being two minutes of debate prior to a vote on amendment 1578 offered by mr. reed for the senator from new york ms. gillibrand.

the senate will be in order. mrs. gillibrand: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator new york. mrs. gillibrand: mr. president, i rise to urge my colleagues to vote "yes" on this strongly bipartisan amendment. the central question is simple: iring's whether this congress is doing everything we can to protect members of our military. the metric of success is not how many reforms we've passed. it is whether we have passed all the reforms that are necessary to make the difference. so if you think the assault rate that is exactly where it was in 20101 unacceptable, then vote "yes." 20,000 sexual assault and sexual contact in one year alone is unacceptable. if you think an average of 52 cases every single day is unacceptable then vote "yes." if you think it is acceptable that one out of three members still don't think it is the risk of reporting vote "yes." if you think zero tolerance is good enough, vote "yes."

if you think survivors are more like i to suffer retaliation than see their offender sentences, vote "yes." stop the retaliation and assault and build trust and professionalize our military justice system. i yield the floor. mr. graham: mr. president i strongly oppose this effort. if you care about our military commanders listen to them. every one of them opposes this. if you believe that the military legal community knows what they're talking about listen to them. every j.a.g. of every service opposes this. 29% decrease in siewment incidences. 70% increase in reporting. senator mccaskill ayotte, fisher and many others along with senator reed. we have real estate formed the military justice system in an appropriate manner. but here's what you should never awill you to happen: commander, last night there is

an alleged rape in the barracks. oh, i don't care about that anymore. send that over to the lawyers. that's -- never let that happen. never let a commander avoid responsibility for accident happens in their unit. it is their job to make sure we have good order and discipline. reinforce good commanders, fire bad ones. do not disenfranchise the best military leadership in the history of the world. that's exactly what this does. we have solve the sexual assault problem. we will not dismantle the infrastructure that's given us the finest military in the history of mankind. that's why everyone who knows what they're talking bel opposes this. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or change their vote? if not on this vote, the yeas are 50, the nays are 49. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for adoption of this amendment the amendment is not agreed to. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate

equally divided prior to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on amendment number 1463 offered by the senator from arizona mr. mccain. mr. mccain: i yield time back. mr. reed: mr. president i would yield the time back. the presiding officer: all time is yielded back. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the mccain amendment numbered 1463 to h.r. 1735 to authorize appropriation for fiscal year 2016 for military activities of the department of defense and for military construction to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year and for other purposes, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on amendment numbered 1463 offered by the senator from arizona mr. mccain to h.r. 14 -- 1735

be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will report the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: have all senators voted?

does any senator wish to vote? on this vote, three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president i call for regular order with respect to the mccain amendment 1456. the presiding officer: the amendment is now pending. mr. mccain: i ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. mccain: i call up the hatch amendment 1911 which is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from arizona, mr. mccain, for mr. hatch, proposes an amendment numbered 1911 to amendment numbered 1456. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent that further reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent that the vitter amendment 1473 be further modified with the changes at the desk. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. mccain: i ask consent that the senate vote in relation to

the vitter amendment at 5:00 p.m. with time equally divided in the usual form and no second degrees prior to the vote. i further ask that senator lee or his designee be recognized to withdraw his amendment 1687 prior to the vote on the vitter amendment. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: mr. mccain: i ask that further proceedings on the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: mr. president, i

ask unanimous consent that the lee amendment 1687 be withdrawn. the presiding officer: without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. mr. mccain: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president are we in a quorum call?

the presiding officer: yes, we are. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: i'd ask unanimous consent to speak for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: so, mr. president for the past several weeks we've been with debating the national defense authorization act which performs one of our most important and significant functions, which is to make sure the people who fight our nation's wars have the resources they need in order to do the job and to keep the american people safe. this bill that started in the armed services committee passed out overwhelmingly, and that's because this is not or should not be a partisan issue. our duty to protect our troops and so they can protect us should be a no-brainer. so you would think that partisan politics would be the farthest thing from this debate and i

am glad that the senate has now taken a big step forward to help move this legislation along. but i have to admit, mr. president, there are somnus signs on the horizon when initially in the committee senate democrats on the armed services committee threatened to block this bill in the committee unless there was some deal cut on spending. that's troubling. although i'm grateful only four democrats voted against this bill in the committee. and then there is some suggestion from the president of the united states that he might consider vetoing this legislation. why? because he disagrees with some of the content of this legislation? well no. the reason he's threatened to veto it is because he said we haven't agreed to his demands to increase spending. by the way spending money that

we don't have, adding to our national debt. so that concerns me a great deal when something that should enjoy broad bipartisan support like our national defense somehow becomes a potential hostage to take in the spending wars here in washington, d.c. well, now we've learned that the strategy among our democratic friends is not to block this bill candidly think they realized they didn't have the votes to do it and it would have been a momentous decision if they had blocked it for some extraneous reason. but now we're told that the next bill that we turn to, which will probably be the defense appropriations bill, that our friends across the aisle are threatening to block that in just another continuing effort to do what they call prepare for their filibuster summer. you know, the great thing about

our friends across the aisle is you couldn't have to wonder necessarily what they're planning to do. all have you to do is read the newspaper because they'll tell you. and there senator schumer one of the senior democrats in leadership said they plan to block every appropriations bills -- appropriations bill until they get a negotiated deal to raise spending limits that have been in effect since 2011. well i have to think this is why the minority leader, the senator from nevada, initially when we were starting debate on this bill suggested it would be a waste of time. i can't think of any other reason why he would say debating and voting on and passing a defense authorization bill would be a waste of time unless there was some implicit threat there that it would never actually be -- see the light of day. but there has been a casualty along the way.

your last thursday we had a vote on a bill that would affect commonsense improvements in our cybersecurity at a time when more and more americans are undergoing cyber attacks. and, of course these take different forms but many nation states have active cyber attack efforts against our intellectual property let's see people who make big investments in weapons systems or airplanes and the like, well our adversaries are actually trying -- actively trying to steal the design information so they can copy that, of course, at much cheaper cost and they can learn what the capabilities of our weapons systems and our airplanes are. but others, cyber attacks are more straightforward. it's just crime. it's stealing. people's identity, stealing

their money, stealing their resources and there are criminal networks all around the world who are actively engaged in trying to steal from the american people on line. so you would have thought this amendment dealing as it did with cybersecurity was a good place to park this on the defense authorization bill, as important a role as cybersecurity plays in our national security. and, of course, the purpose was to help the government and private businesses work together to protect americans' personal information and their privacy. which is pretty straightforward goal. protecting the personal information of the american people is really, really important and it was noncontroversial. this particular bill that was offered as an amendment to the defense authorization bill passed out of the intelligence committee 14-1. but since this was filibuster

summer the minority leader, senator reid decided the democrats were going to vote as a group to block this amendment. not even 24 hours later though, their timing could not have been worse the need for this critical legislation became even more urgent. on friday, one day after the democratic leader urged his colleagues to block this important cybersecurity measure, media reports began confirming that hackers had accessed government networks and obtained incredibly sensitive background information used for security clearances in a second breach to the personnel management systems. and this information which one former n.s.a. official described as the crown jewels and a gold mine for any foreign intelligence services were reportedly stolen en masse and included many personal details

of job applicants. as a matter of fact, the people who actually apply for a security clearance which is processed by the office of personnel management, the people who fill out these forms fill out extensive background information, including birth dates, names telephone numbers and the like but it also includes things like passport information, social security numbers, private identification and background details extensive information about background places of residence and addresses and names of contact -- and contact information of close friends and family members. and so you can see why there would be concern when state actors penetrate the network at the office of personnel management to steal information about that background and security clearance process. this stolen information could be used not only against our

intelligence officers and military officials but also their family and their friends who may well now be exposeed. that same day last friday it was reported that the first office of personnel management data breach a breach that was initially reported two weeks ago, actually comprised -- compromised i should say the records of as many as 14 million current and former government officials. that's more than three times the original estimate. so while our nation's public servants are having their personal sensitive -- sensitive personal information stolen the democratic leader led nearly all of his colleagues to block sensible bipartisan legislation that was focused on that specific threat, and which would provide for greater information sharing between the private sector and government in order to address this very

problem. well i am pleased to say that the minority leader was not able to convince all democrats to block this legislation and, in fact seven democratic members voted to promote security over partisanship and good for them for joining us in doing that. but as i said before, but it's worth noting again, the american people have rejected this idea that the united states senate and the united states congress should do nothing. they did that last november during the election. they made crystal clear that they wanted their elected representatives whether in the house or the senate to come here to washington on their behalf and to actually make -- take steps to make their lives better and to work on their behalf, not to use this chamber for partisan political games. and we've heard the accusations in the past, the democratic

leader has loudly and routinely criticized this side of the aisle for obstruction but threatening to block all funding bills unless you get 100% of what you want after spending money that we don't have and looking at an escalating debt in the tens of trillions of dollars is to me the height of hypocrisy and by pledging to filibuster upcoming appropriation bills including the defense authorization, he and his colleagues have made their priorities very clear. they're willing to jeopardize the paychecks and the security of our men and women in uniform so they can give more taxpayer dollars to sprawling bureaucracies like the i.r.s. and the e.p.a. and, unfortunately the leadership on the other side of the aisle is using these very same troops who put their lives on the line every day to score a

few partisan points and to leverage their insatiable appetite for tax dollars. there's never enough. there's never enough. but i don't know that everyone on that side of the aisle is comfortable this strategy. i'm somewhat encouraged in a strange sense of the word by the fact that seven democrats refused to follow the democratic leader down this path to blocking the cybersecurity legislation, and to their credit they voted on the merits of the legislation. but, unfortunately not enough did in order for us to get it considered and voted on. so i hope our colleagues in light of this almost contemporaneous occurrence at the office of personnel management and the recurring daily stories about how cyber attacks are stealing the personal property and represent an intelligence threat and stealing the money of the american people that our

colleagues would work with us to do what the american people elected us to do, which is to work together to move forward sensible bipartisan legislation that's important to the country. so i hope our friends across the aisle will listen to the american people instead of their misguided leadership. over the past few months, under republican majorities, this chamber has demonstrated that we're willing to work across the aisle to get the senate functioning again for the american people. and you know what, the irony is our friends who are now in the minority who used to be in the majority i think they kind of like it because they actually can offer amendments, they can get votes on amendments and they can represent their constituents in this body, which they came here to do. so i hope we can keep the senate working and avoid this filibuster summer that was touted in one of the newspapers just last week. i know the people of my state expect me to come up here and represent their interests and i

know all of our constituents expect us to do better by them. mr. president, i would yield the floor. ms. ayotte: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. ayotte: thank you mr. president. i come to the floor today to talk about an amendment that i have to the defense authorization, and americans who volunteer to defend our country deserve our utmost support and great credit for their uniquely honorable, difficult and important service. we are a safe and free nation because of their bravery and sacrifice. however, as we honor our troops and our veterans, we have to remember that they don't serve alone. military families serve too. they make serious career and personal sacrifices on behalf of their loved ones so that their

loved one can serve our country. anyone who has served in the military or been married to a service member or even attended a military retirement ceremony -- i actually come from a military family -- understands that a successful military career depends on the support and sacrifice of those that you love and those who are in your family. and a career in the military frequently involves for your spouse frequent moves and long separations, which present unique challenges for military families. the service and sacrifice of military families not only zev's recognition -- deserves recognition and respect but military families are also a critical component of our military readiness. it is difficult for a mother, a father a husband or a wife serving in the military to focus on defending our nation if they're worried about the well-being of their family at home.

perhaps that is why in march of this year the commandant of the marine corps general joseph dunkford who has now been nominated to serve as the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, testified that a key element in our overall readiness is family readiness. the family members of our marines are very much a part of the marine corps family. their sacrifices and support are not taken for granted. however, it's come to our ateption that the -- attention that the current laws and regulations fail to fully reflect the sacrifices of our military families or the importance of this issue to military readiness. and i want to talk about a specific problem and that is when a member of our military actually is -- gets into criminal trouble and yet their spouse and children are -- have to suffer as a result of it,

current law forces military juries to sometimes confront the undesirable dilemma of either supporting justice or supporting the military family but not both. in these rare and trag uke cases, a -- in these rare and tragic cases a jury must choose to either impose a just sentence on a member of our military, which of course these cases are require, but whom commits a crime. but if the jury imposes a just sentence this could cause the retirement benefits that the family of the military member are counting on to be taken away and so it leads to this choice of either give a just sentence or strong sentence and punish the family also who is an innocent bistander in all of this but not both. and when a jury chooses a just sentence an innocent family can be left with nothing and that's wrong.

knowing this, some family members choose not to report crime out of fear that coming forward will risk loss of benefits that a family member helped earn. for these reasons i'm proud that the national defense authorization, as passed by the committee, does include an amendment that i introduced with senator gillibrand which could make traditional benefits available to innocent military family members when their retirement-eligible service member forfeits those benefits due to a court-martial. i'm also pleased that the defense authorization contains a sense of congress language that recognizes the valuable service of military families and emphasizes the view of the committee that military juries should not have to choose between a fair sentence and protecting military families. our work isn't finished. we must do more to recognize the service of military families and to ensure a strong and fair military justice system. so i want to talk briefly about

a case, a case of rebecca sinclair, who was married to a career service member who served with distinction. she supported hip as he rose in the ranks to become a general. she served alongside him for 27 years. he was at home for a total of five years between the years of 2001 and 2012. she had been a single mother during those five combat deployments that he served our country with. she moved 17 times in 27 years. her oldest son went to six schools by the time he was in sixth grade and despite earning a bachelor's degree and a mast master's degree, her career had been severely limited because of the moves. she thought this sacrifice was worthy because she was doing it on behalf of her nation and family. and unfortunately -- and i'll tell you because she wasn't able to achieve her full earning potential, she was counting on the pay benefits, and

retirement plan she helped her husband earn over 27 years. but then in 2012, she watched helplessly as all of this sacrifice, all of this effort, all of this work hung in the balance. unlike the vast majority of service members who serve their whole career with with honor her husband was charged with 25 counts of misconduct, including forceable sod me, sodomy and sexual assault assault. rebecca was totally innocent of this conduct. her sons were totally innocent. yet her husband's actions threatened to leave her with no benefits and no security after 27 years of sacrifice. and if he were to be dismissed from the army, rebecca and her sons would be left with nothing. during his sentencing hearing rebecca's husband begged the court to allow him to retire at a reduced mark so that his family could collect the

benefits which in his words "they have earned serving alongside me all these years." rebecca also pleaded that her family be spared for her husband's actions. rebecca sums it up well in a piece she wrote "for military wives, the options are bad and worse. stay with your husband and keep your family intact or lose your family. because we moved so often spouses lose careers of career advancement. some of us spentsdz every other year as single parents. we're vulnerable emotionalland financially and many stay silent out of necessity not natural passivity. it's time to fix these problems. saying thank you to military families is not enough. we must ensure that our laws and regulations reflect our gratitude to military families and the pons of what they do. -- and the importance of what they do. they serve our country too and they have earned the benefits as well.

it's not right for a military family to rely on his family to help earn retirement benefits and then have that individual commit misconduct but the family is punished, too. my amendment would fix this problem by recognizing that military families serve too. remove disincentives to report misconduct and put the sentencing process back in balance. juries can choose a punishment to fit the cyle crime without worry that an innocent family member will suffer as a result. my amendment has been endorsed by ten veteran service organizations and i urge my colleagues to support this important amendment that allows the military justice system to function properly but also makes sure that innocent family members do not suffer and that their service is recognized as well. thank you mr. president. i would yield the floor. mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president wish to address two events from the last several days, both of which have the poe potential to reshape the way the american people use

the internet for communication and commerce. the first came last week when the other body voted on a bipartisan basis to permanently extend the internet tax freedom act. i wrote that law, which is commonly known as itfa, along with former congressman chris conform, in 199cox in 1998. i believe it is past time for the senate to follow the house's lead and send a permanent extension to the president's desk. the second important matter came up yesterday when a bill called the remote transaction parody act was introduced in the other body. what this proposal offers is a brand-new national sales tax managed by a privatizing

tax-collecting bureaucracy that not a single voter in america has approved. i see this online tax hike as a major threat to the internet that has flourished under the bipartisan internet tax freedom act. i want to address both of these issues briefly today beginning with the importance of the permanent internet tax freedom law. ever since the congress passed it it has been an essential tool in helping the internet grow unencumbered by discriminatory taxation. it prohibits the kind of discriminatory taxes that some in the congress are too fond of, the kind of taxes that i believe would hurt innovation and punish the millions of citizens and businesses who use and depend on the internet each day. the internet tax freedom act has saved families in oregon and across america hundreds of dollars a year.

that's because without the law access to the internet would likely be subject to the same level of punishing taxation that is currently imposed on cigarettes and alcohol. you already see that with wireless services not protected by the internet tax freedom act and it area does involve onerous taxes. inflicting those taxes on internet access is a burden that the senate absolutely should not heap on the american people. unfortunately, the congress has become too reliant on stop-and-go governing so the internet tax freedom act has been extended several times on a temporary basis. some members in the senate and house want to tie the internet tax freedom act which saves people money to a controversial proposal that would drive up the cost of using the internet the way americans do today. that's where the second issue that i'd like to address comes

in. the house proposal, called the remote transaction parody act has taken a variety of different forms over the years. an older version that doid in the congress was called -- that died in the congress was called the marketplace fairness afnlgt the idea us -- fairness act. the idea used to be turn every business big or small into a tax collector for the thousands of tax jurisdictions across the country. with every new version of this online tax hike bill, you would see a new set of problems crop up. now the proposal has become even bigger and more unwieldy. the new proposal comal coming from the other -- the new proposal coming from the other body would build an enormous, privatizing, tax-collecting bureaucracy and that new bureaucracy would take a big cut of every online sale before a single dime of sales tax gets

distributed back to the states or local communities. so i'll take a minute and talk about how this hurts my home state. my home state has no sales tax but under this proposal, this murky tax-collecting middle man is going to get involved anytime somebody in virginia or michigan or california makes a purchase online from an oregon company. this proposal would unfairly siphon money away from oregon, yet oregonians will get nothing in return from these newly empowered national tax collectors. in effect, there would be a new national sales tax overseen by a privatized middle man and that raises serious questions about whether taxpayer dollars should be going to a for-profit tax collector. it could put sensitive data about businesses and their customers into the cross hairs of hacker and criminals. that would be just about the biggest federal intrusion in the

state -- into state commerce in a long time. it also creates a major new hurdle for small businesses that want to find consumers online. that would be a particularly harsh blow to companies in rural america, in rural oregon and elsewhere. it would suddenly be a whole lot harder to compete with a retailer in a crowded city when the cost of doing business online takes a jump. finally, it takes a fundamentally tilted playing field against u.s. employers and, in effect, makes those employers pay a national sales tax. so you have created a fundamentally tilted playing field and the internet spans national borders but sellers from china canada, and europe will not and cannot be subject to this tax and under this approach, they will profit at the expense of the american

consumer and american worker. in my view, mr. president, you have at hand now two radically different pieces of legislation. the first has been on the books now for well over a decade and has been hugely valuable. -- in terms of innovation, choice in consumers. that's the permanent intert tax freedom act in effect taking what we had for over a decade and making it permanent. and with the permanent approach, you've lowered costs for consumers and protect the internet as a bulwark for free speech and commerce promoting american companies and american ideals. so that's approach number one making permanent something that has worked since 1998. the second approach is the remote transaction parity act which would raise costs for americans, hurt small and rural businesses and punish states

like oregon that have kept taxes low. in my view, it would be legislative malpractice to tie these two approaches together. the path forward for the united states senate should be very clear. that is to take the permanent internet tax freedom act that has sailed through the house and with the ball in our court pass it here. i believe that a permanent law protecting internet access and taxation is long overdue and the proposal for an online tax hike should not get in the way. so i urge my colleagues now to join me in working for a bipartisan permanent internet tax freedom act unencumbered by the kind of approach that has been introduced in the house creates a national sales tax. let us reject that and move to

pass a permanent internet tax freedom act as soon as possible. with that, madam president i yield the floor. mr. reed: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: thank you madam president. madam president, at 5:00 p.m. we'll be voting on an amendment proposed by the senator from louisiana, senator vitter. this amendment would require the secretary of the army to maintain at least 32 brigade combat teams in the regular and reserve components of the arm and 28 teams in the army national guard. this amendment would prevent the army from managing its own force structure, from determining how many brigades it needs how they are disposed in terms of active, reserve and regular forces. in addition, the way the amendment is paid for to maintain these additional

brigades would be to mandate a 1% pay cut to all federal and civilian employees from 2016 to 2017. not a pay freeze. a pay cut. the army does not support this amendment. they need the flexibility to manage their forces to respond to the threats as they perceive them in the world to determine where the forces are mechanized whether they are located in the national guard or located in the regular force. as such, as the army draws down down -- and it is on that trajectory because of many issues, some of them budgetary -- it would have to totally reexamine its existing force structure and it would indeed have to sacrifice what they think is the most optimal force for a legislative mandate of an arbitrary number of brigades in place. this will create readiness

problems because there is one thing to have brigades on paper. it's another to have brigades that are ready to deploy fully trained, fully equipped, fully manned. that would complicate this process in the army. and so for these reasons, when the amendment is presented at 5:00 p.m. i would be opposing the amendment and urge my colleagues to join me in that opposition. i think if he army -- i think the army is the most capable to determine its force structure and not by legislative fiat. with that, madam president, i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mccain: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: the vitter amendment calls for a minimum number of army --

the presiding officer: we are in a quorum call. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: the vitter amendment tries to enforce a minimum number of army brigade combat teams seeks to direct the united states army to maintain not fewer than 32 brigade combat teams in the regular army and 28 in the army national guard. the secretary of the army couldn't reduce these until it reports to congress and certifies impacts on operation on this to the national defense strategy and insufficient funds appropriations. the secretary of the army must also report rationale for any proposed reduction of total strength in the regular army, national guard army reserves. it includes an operational analysis given reduction and assessment of force mixed ratio among all those organizations. additionally, the secretary with the director of the army national guard,s the chief of

army reserve must report to congress at least 90 days before any possible reduction. the report must list remaining major combat units missions unit assignments by installation and propose b.c. it's for disestablishment -- propose b.c. it's -- b.c.t. and on and on. we don't do this, don't tell the army national guard that they can only have a minimum of this or that and that they can't do certain things until they requires report manning levels. in principle i agree with the senator from louisiana. the world is less secure. we're facing many threats. we need an army capable of securing our interests around the world. in fact, last week decisions were made to deploy more forces

to iraq. the amendment is bad policy. congress shouldn't attempt to manage forces. that's the job of the secretary of the army and the chief of staff. our job is to authorize and fund. the key is giving army leadership the flexibility to manage the total army force given the planned drawdown. in fiscal year 2016 the army end strength is being reduced and funding adjusted accordingly. the cost to maintain the army at 490,000 for one year is about $2.4 billion. of course the senator's amendment does not have any indication where that $2.4 billion would come from. so the if enacted the amendment could result in a regular army of tiered readiness. the army would have a force of 490,000 with a budget for

$475,000. we don't want a hollow army like the 1970's. so i would urge my colleague from louisiana the sponsor of this amendment, that he should devote his energies and efforts to the repeal of sequestration which is what is forcing these decisions to be made by the army which in my view and the view of our military leaders is putting the men and women' lives at greater risk. mr. vitter: would the gentleman yield for a few questions? mr. mccain: i'd like to finish my statement first. i'd appreciate that. so i oppose the amendment on the fact that we do not have the funding here to maintain the army at the level that both he and i would prefer. and if we do repeal

sequestration, then there will be sufficient funding for the maintaining the army, the national guard and the army reserves at the levels that the senator from louisiana strongly advocates. and i also advocate. so i would be glad to respond to a question from the senator. mr. vitter: thank you to the gentleman for yielding. i would just ask whether the underlying bill doesn't do exactly the same sort of thing in other categories, like minimum numbers of aircraft carriers in the navy, like minimum numbers of certain key equipment in the air force which i agree with. but i don't see any difference in kind between those provisions of the underlying bill and what this provision would constitute

with regard to a key element of army and strength brigade combat teams. that's the first question. and the second question is: did the gentleman know that in the resubmitted version of the amendment there is a noncontroversial sense of the senate regarding an offset for this to be put forward. and finally, i would certainly agree with the gentleman about trying to fix the top line numbers and the top-line situation with regard to sequestration and as i'm sure he knows i support that. mr. mccain: i would respond to my friend to say that what we have authorized, as you clearly described, is what the services have said they need to do their mission, and based on their requirements not the view of what my requirements are.

and so, i think what the senator's proposal is is very different from what he described. so -- and if we are -- again everything that we feel authorized in the bill, there is sufficient funding for. what this amendment is authorizing in the bill would require an additional $2.4 billion to be authorized out of the budget that was set by the budget committee which would then mean reductions in other areas, as i'm sure that the senator appreciates that we authorize to the budget numbers as a result of the budget committee's allocation for

defense. so i thank the senator from louisiana for his continued support of the men and women in the military, especially those bases in louisiana as well as around the world. he is an advocate for the men and women who are serving and i appreciate his continued dedication to their welfare and benefit. we just have an honest disagreement on whether this amendment is appropriate in our management of the armed services. so i thank the senator and we may have a disagreement on the amendment and vote on it as requested. he asked me if we could consider his amendment if we could have it not be a tabling motion. and i am glad to accommodate the senator. with that, i yield the floor.