quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. mr. king: mr. president before beginning my remarks i want to express my -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. king: i'd like to ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. king: mr. president before beginning, i want to express my profound sorrow, sympathy and condolences to the people of south carolina and the people of charleston for the tragedy which occurred last night.

to my colleagues, senator scott and senator graham, and to all the people of south carolina. these things are very hard to understand very hard to fathom, and i think i speak for all of our colleagues when i say our heart goes out to the people of south carolina this morning about -- concerning this unspeakable tragedy. mr. president, there has been a great deal of discussion this week and there will be, i'm sure over the next few days about pope francis' comments in his encyclical issue this morning on the issue of climate change and on the issue of preservation of the environment. some of the reaction has been that the pope should stay away from science and stick to morality and theology. mr. president, i'm here this morning to say i believe that's exactly what he is doing. he is sticking to morality and

theology and that's why he's made the statement that he has. i have always viewed this issue in fundamentally an ethical and moral context. there has been lots of talk here, lots of discussion, lots of debate in committees and on this floor about the science which i think is irrefutable the science of climate change, the science of the increasing load of co2 in the atmosphere, the most we've ever had in some three million years the impact that it will have, the practical impact. i've talked about the impact on the lobster population in maine on the shellfish on our forests, on moose in new hampshire, on water-edged cities and communities all over this country. all of those practical and scientific things we've talked about at great length on this floor. i think the only thing i would say is that i'm convinced that the science is irrefutable that a something is happening b, it's detrimental to the

future of the country -- of the world, and c we people are largely responsible for it. but fundamentally fundamentally this is a moral and ethical issue. it seems to me, it's always occurred to me in two moral and ethical contexts. one is i don't understand what right several generations of people on this earth have to use up a resource that was created a finite resource created over millions of years. it took three million or four million years to create the oil and gas that's underneath our earth. how do we have the right to use it all up in 200 or 300 years? it assumes that we are the only people who will ever occupy this planet. and, indeed, i don't believe that's the case. obviously, it's not the case. there are generations who come after us.

six, seven eight ten generations of people who will come after us. why do we have the right to use resources that the earth created for all of time? one of the fundamental premises of the old testament are, of course the ten commandments. one of the basic ten commandments is thou shalt not steal. and i believe we are stealing resources from future generations by simply using them up in our lifetimes. that's the moral and ethical issue, number one. the second ethical issue is the fundamental ethical and moral principle of stewardship. the first line of the bible is in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth. god created god created the heavens and the earth. we have a responsibility to

steward, to take care of the creation that god gave us. there are some very interesting biblical references early in the bible, in leviticus the third chapter of the bible. the third book of the bible about this concept of stewardship. one is in leviticus 25, the lord said to moses the land must never be sold on a permanent basis, for the land belongs to me. this is god speaking. the land belongs to me. you are only foreigners and tenant farmers working for me. that's the concept of a long-term stewardship that we don't own the land. yeah, we have deeds and we think we own it, we can pass it on to our children, but we don't own the planet, and we have a responsibility to pass that

resource on to our children in good shape and not destroy it. another interesting provision in leviticus -- and i hope it's okay to make notations in the lord's book because that's what i did. in leviticus 25, moses is told a very interesting thing about how to take care of the land. god talked about a sabbath for the land just as he talked about a sabbath for people, a day of rest. for six years you may plant your fields and prune your vineyards and harvest your crops, but during the seventh year, the land must have a sabbath of complete rest. very interesting. the land must have a sabbath. it is the lord's sabbath. do not plant your fields or prune your vineyards during that year. and then later on, in chapter

30 -- in verse 32, god tells moses what will happen if you don't observe that rule. in other words, if you just keep planting and abusing the land. this is, again quoting god here in leviticus 25. your land will become desolate. there is an interesting observation. your land will become desolate and your cities will lie in ruins. then at last the land will enjoy its neglected sabbath years as it lies desolate while you are in exile in the land of your enemies. the land will finally rest and enjoy the sabbath it missed. the concept is we have an obligation to the land, to the earth that's been given to us. and then you skip all the way from the beginning of the old testament to the end of the new testament to the book of revelations, and there is a kind

of admonition, i think for all of us in terms of our stewardship of the earth. in revelations 11:18 the chapter says your wrath came and the time for the dead to be judged and for rewarding your servants and for destroying the destroyers of the earth. that's something we ought to take very seriously that the time will come for the destroying of the destroyers of the earth. this is all about morality, theology, and ethics. this is about simply taking care of the asset that the good lord gave us, whatever name you give to the good lord, it's the -- it's the earth that we have been given, it's the only earth we have it's the only home we have. and we simply can't destroy it.

and yes in genesis it says man is given dominion over the waters of the earth and the animals, but that doesn't mean -- that doesn't mean we are entitled to destroy it. it means we have to steward it, we have to conserve it. and that's really what this discussion is all about. this is about ethics. this is about morality. it is about theology, as i've demonstrated. now i want to go from the good book to another way to state this. in maine we have what's called the maine rote owe till require rule. it's all you need to know about environmental stewardship. if you borrow your neighbor's rototiller to clean up your garden the principle is you return it in as good a shape and with a full tank of gas. that's environmental stewardship. we don't own this planet. we have it on loan. therefore, we have a

responsibility to pass it on to our children and grandchildren and countless generations ahead of us in as good a shape as we got it and maybe with a full tank of gas. and that means that we just can't willy-nilly act like there are no consequences for our actions. that we can befoul the air and the land and the water. for our convenience for our aggrandizement for our material comfort. we have to think about other people and that's, of course, the fundamental principle of every religion in the world do unto others as you would have them do unto you. and i would submit, mr. president, that others includes not only those of us here or those of us in america or those of us around the

world, but those of us who haven't been born yet. we have an obligation to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. and so i welcome the pope's words this week as a valuable voice in an important discussion. and i realize that we will have differences about how to solve this problem, we'll have differences about the exact exemptions of it, we'll have differences about what the resolution should be and the technology that we should use and how we should get there and transitions and all of those kinds of things. that's perfectly legitimate. but fundamentally we have to think of this as a moral and ethical issue. as a moral and ethical issue the obligations that we owe to other people in this country to other people in the world who have no voice in the use of the resources that are being taken away from them, and

particularly to the people that we don't yet know who are going to follow us on this wonderful home that we've have been given -- we have been given to steward, to preserve, to use but to pass on in as good or better shape than we found it. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: thank you mr. president. mr. president, first i want to begin by extending my deepest condolences and prayers to the families and loved ones of those lost in the heinous church shooting in charleston, south carolina. our hearts break for the people of charleston, and especially for the congregation of this house of god a place of refuge a place of peace a place of love.

the perpetrator of this hate crime must be found and swiftly brought to justice. tragedies like this remind us that we are all interconnected in our hometowns in our country, across the planet, whether it is our common home of worship or the common home of our planet, we are called every day to care for one another especially those who are most in need. today pope francis released an historic encyclical, a message to the world to preserve the planet from climate change and environmental degradation. in giving us his message to protect what he calls our common home pope francis also has given us a common goal. we must act now to stop climate change. pope francis' encyclical calls all people of conscious -- of

conscience to examine our own lives and the people and the planet and our duty to take action. the pope's message is clear -- mankind created the problem of climate change and now mankind must solve it. pope francis delivered this message to the world but the world needs america to lead. as the wealthiest nation in the world, and one of its largest pollution emitters, it is economic and moral responsibility to act now. there is time to avoid the worst effects of climate change, but we must act now. global temperatures are warming, glaciers are melting sea levels are rising, extreme downpours and weather events are increasing the ocean is becoming more acidic last year was the warmest year ever

recorded and it is the poorest and the most vulnerable in developing nations who have suffered the most from the developed world's pollution. and by reducing u.s. carbon pollution, the u.s. can be a leader not a laggard in answering pope francis' call. climate change deniers may be the doubting thomass of the 21st century but there is no doubting the science anymore when national academies of sciences across the globe including the vatican's a all agree that burning fossil fuels is changing the earth's climate. so to all of the critics of pope francis' message let's stop denying the science and let's start deploying the solutions. let's deploy more winds and solar and energy and renewed tax breaks for these projects.

let's make our cars and trucks even more fuel efficient. let's fully implement and defend president obama's clean power plant and -- power plan and that will reduce carbon pollution from america's power plants. the united states can be the leader in the clean energy revolution to reduce the pollution imperilling this planet and then we can partner with other nations to share this technology and to protect the most vulnerable. the united states has the technological imperative to lead on clean energy. we have the economic imperative to engage in massive job creation that will make it possible to save all of creation. we have the moral responsibility to protect our planet for future generations. the pope has given us the guidance the moral guidance in his encyclical and we know that

ultimately science and technology will be the answer to our prayers but the leadership must begin here. this cannot happen without leadership from the united states senate, from the united states of america. if we want to see more solar and wind deployed in our country then we must put the tax credits on the books that incentivize the private sector and individuals across the country to deploy it. last year, there were 5,000 new megawatts of solar installed in the united states. that's twice as much as had been deployed in the whole history of the united states up until five years ago. this year there's going to be 7,500 new megawatts of solar

installed in the united states. that's triple the whole history of the united states up until five years ago. next year there is going to be 10,000 new megawatts of solar installed in the united states. that's four times as much as had ever been deployed in the whole history of our country cumulatively. so this is a revolution that is absolutely helping to transform the way in which we generate electricity in the united states. the same thing is true for wind. wind is expanding at the same exact pace in terms of generating sources of electricity from a place that has always been there using god's energy in order to provide electricity for american homes and businesses. what is happening in both areas?

well the republican senate has allowed the wind tax breaks to already expire, already they have expired. the solar tax breaks expire at the end of next year. we have no agreement no signal that this senate is sending to the investors in solar consumers across the country that solar will be given any incentives past the end of next year. similarly we've seen a dramatic increase in the fuel economy standards of the vehicles which we drive. in fact, much of the problem that we have in finding a source of revenues for a robust transportation bill comes from the fact that people are now consuming less gasoline in their much more fuel efficient cars. since president obama took the

authority, by the way which this senate gave to him in 2007 to dramatically increase the fuel economy standards for those vehicles. we have to go all the way up to the 54.5 miles per gallon, which the president has proposed. that will dramatically reduce greenhouse gases and we must ensure that the president's clean power rules which he's going to promulgate within the next month stay on the books. there are already those here in the senate who are saying they are going to try to vitiate to overturn to make impossible the implementation of those power plant rules which will keep the greenhouse gases coming out of coal-burning plants especially across our country to a minimum to reduce by 30%

the amount of greenhouse gases carbon that comes out of power plants generating electricity in our country by the year 2030. we can do this. we are a technological power. the pope, the world they look to us. they say to us president kennedy challenged the nation to put a man on the moon in eight years in order to say to the soviet union that we would not allow them to come nature outer space 5. and in eight years our country invented new metals, new propulsion systems, returned that crew from the moon safely. and we with our american flag said we are going to use outer space for peaceful purposes. well the flag that flew on the moon is now in the capitol.

that's the return on investment in science and technology in the united states. to help the rest of the world ensure that outer space will be used for peaceful purposes. well, the rest of the world expects us to do the same thing when it comes to clean energy. the rest of the world expects us to be able to invent new technologies new batteries solar, wind, geothermal, energy efficiency vehicles, metals that will dramatically reduce the amount of pollution that we are sending up into the world but simultaneously spread these technologies across the planet. in the 1990's, we invented new digital technologies. it was first just a very plain phone, but no one had one in their pocket until 1995 and 1996 because the phone was the size

of a brick and it cost 50 cents a minute, no one had one. too expensive. but then this congress moved over 200 megahertz of spectrum. it incentivized the private sector to begin to move, and within three years everyone had one of these phones in their pockets. well within another eight years, it moved to a smart phone, because we had begun the revolution where was the smart phone invented? right here in the united states. now, let's take africa, for example. 20 years ago did anyone believe that 700 million people in africa would have a wireless device in their pocket? no. why do they? because the united states invented the united states put the policies on the books that generated this revolution.

they skipped telephone poles. they went right to wireless, right to cell phone towers. we did that. we gave the leadership. well that's league to a lot of economic development in africa, in continents around this world. we have to do the same thing in energy technology. they can -- they can envision a day where they bypass having to put wires down the street for electricity as well, that solar panels could just be on their roofs, providing electricity to power their cell phones, their refrigerators, their stoves, their air conditioners. we can do this. we have the capacity to do it but we have to set our mind to do it because there is an economic incentive for us. oh yes, there is a national security incentive for us. oh yes. we can just tell them at least we don't need their oil any more than we need their sand.

we're going to provide our own power and we're going to give other countries in the world the capacity to produce their own power. but we can do it as well because it's a moral imperative, because god's earth his creation is back now in jeopardy. we have to be the leaders. we have to answer this moral cause, and we can't say that we can't do it. we can't say that we can't invent our way out of this potential catastrophe for the entire planet. the pope is calling upon us to be the world's leader, morally and economically. we can do it. and so today's an important day. i think a watershed moment. i am a catholic. the pope is a jesuit who is trained as a chemist. for those who say the pope has no business in talking about

climate, he's a chemist. there are many people who say well i don't have a view on climate because i'm not a scientist. well the pope is a scientist he's looked at the evidence, he's asked the vatican academy of arts and sciences to study this issue. they have come back with their conclusions. man is creating the problem and mankind now must solve the problem. but it's to those who have created the pollution that the greatest responsibility falls. you cannot preach temperance from a bar stool. you cannot tell people to reduce what they are doing smoking or drinking or engaging in dangerous activities if you too, are engaging in them. the leadership must come from this chamber. the leadership must come from the united states of america. pope francis' message must rest

rest -- resonate throughout this chamber in the months and years ahead. if we do it, we will have been doing as president kennedy said in his inaugural address truly god's work here on earth. mr. president, i yield back the balance of my time. mr. markey: mr. president i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mccain: mr. president i ask unanimous consent further proceedings under the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. morning business is closed. the clerk will report the pending business. the clerk: calendar number 99, h.r. 1735, an act to authorize appropriation for fiscal year 2016 for military activities in the department of defense and so forth and for other purposes. mr. mccain: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president i hope that we are in the final hours of a two and a half-week consideration of the defense authorization bill. not all amendments were debated

and not as many were reported yet. we still have hopes that there could be a manager's package which is composed of agreed upon amendments by both sides equally divided by both sides of the aisle here, both republican and democrat. there are some important amendments so i hope that we will be able to get approval of at least some of them prior to the votes that i believe will be scheduled for this afternoon in order to conclude debate and consideration of the defense authorization act. so as we enter the final votes and there are members on the other side of the aisle and maybe even on this side of the aisle that are deeply concerned

about the o.c.o. funding for this authorization and i repeat again to my colleagues that i don't like the use of o.c.o. i would like to follow the advice of every one of our military leaders who say that continued sequestration puts the lives of the men and women who are serving in the military in greater danger. i'm not sure we have a greater obligation than that to do everything possible to prevent the lives of our men and women serving in uniform in greater danger and to get hung up on the method of funding as opposed opposed -- which many will use as a rationale for opposing this bill seems to me an upside-down set of priorities.

badly upside-down. if we don't fund, we don't authorize. if we don't make possible for us to equip and train and retain the finest military force in the world, why is it a higher priority to object to the method of funding? as i said, in a perfect world i would argue vigorously and have continued to about the harmful effects of sequestration. and i'm not talking about a political opinion. i'm talking about the view of the uniform leaders of our nation who have the respect and admiration of all of us. they're telling us that if we continue sequestration which would be the effect of gnat including stht additional funding of the overseas

contingency operations, then obviously in this world it becomes more and more dangerous as we speak and i continued to quote probably the most respected man in america in many respects henry kissinger who testified before our committee that he has never seen more crises around the world since world war ii, as is the case today. so i would -- i would entreat my colleagues who may be contemplating against this legislation on the grounds that the funding is a disqualifying factor, it is a troubling factor, it is troubling to me, but shouldn't we care more about the men and women who are serving in the military than the problem we might have with a

certain process that was followed in order to get there? i would think not. and if you look at the world in 2011 when the unthinkable happened and that is that sequestration automatically kicked in because both sides were unable to agree on the process that would reduce the deficit and put us on a path to a balanced budget, everyone said that sequestration wouldn't happen because they will come to an agreement. obviously, sequestration did happen. but if you look at the world in the year of 2011 when sequestration picked in, and the world today i think -- i think that there is a compelling argument that national security

and national defense is far more important than it was then. because a series of events began in 2011, including incredibly misguided decision by the president of the united states to withdraw all forces from iraq which then inevitably, as some of us predicted led to the situation as it exists today that the world is now and the middle east is now literally on fire. and what are the results of this misguided -- these misguided policies and the commitment on the part of the president to get us out of wars? the president ignored one reality, and that is that we may get americans out of wars, but that doesn't mean the wars are over. so what we have seen is the spread of isis.

we have seen iran on the move in nations throughout the region now including the latest information we have that iran is supplying weapons to the taliban in afghanistan not to mention yemen, syria iraq and lebanon where they are basically in control and our sunni arab middle eastern arab nations are now going their own way because they have no confidence in the united states. so what has been the result? well mr. president all you have to do is pick up this morning's copy of the "washington post." refugee crisis hits tipping point. the united nations ranks 2014 as the worst year on record. it cites dire need for aid. london, the number of people uprooted from their homes by war and persecution in 2014 was

larger than in any year since detailed recordkeeping began according to a comprehensive report released early thursday by the u.n. refugee agency that will add to the evidence of a global exodus unlike any in modern times. just a year after the number of refugees asylum seekers and people forced to flee within their own countries surpassed 50 million -- 50 million -- since the end of world war ii it surged to nearly 60 million in 2014. a nation of the displaced that is roughly equal to the population of the united kingdom. the rapidly escalating figures reflect a world of renewed conflict with wars in the middle east africa, asia and europe driving individuals and families from their homes in desperate flights for safety but the systems for managing those flows are breaking down with countries

and aid agencies unable to handle the strain as an average of nearly 45,000 people a day joining the ranks of the displaced. so i would urge my colleagues to understand two things. one, a lot of these things didn't have to happen. be a the absence of american leadership and involvement is largely responsible to a great deal of this. and second of all it is of vital importance in my view given the situation throughout the world that we pass the defense authorization bill, reconcile our differences with the legislation in the house and with the administration, and take into tact this is probably the greatest -- this is -- 0 into account this is probably the greatest legislation in history, since the well known

goldwater-nichols act was passed. reuters said world's displaced hits high of 60 million, half of them children. 60 million people are displaced, half of them are children. children. they're the ones that always suffer the most. at the end of last year the highest ever recorded number, the u.n. refugee agency said, more than half the displaced from crises including syria afghanistan, and somalia where children -- were children, it's an annual global trends report, if in 2014 an average of 42,500 people became refugee, asylum seekers or internally displaced every day representing a fourfold increase in just four years. in four years a fourfold increase in the number of refugees. again, not an accident. we are witnessing a paradigm

change and,a -- an unchecked slide into into an era of global forceed displacement as well as the response required is now clearly dwarfing anything seen before said high commissioner for refugees antonio gutierrez. unacr said syria where be conflict has ranged since 2011 -- remember, 2011 -- was the world's biggest source of internally displaced people and refugees. there were 7.6 million displaced people in syria by the end of last year and almost four million syrian refugees mainly living in the neighboring countries of lebanon jordan and turkey. for the information of my colleagues, there are now more syrian children in school in lebanon than there are lebanese children in school in lebanon. unacr said there were 38.2 million displaceed by

conflict within national borders, almost five million more than a year before. with wars in ukraine south sudan, nigeria central african republic and the democratic republic of congo swelling the figures. it also noted that more than 1.6 million people sought political asylums in a foreign country last year, a jump of 50% compared to the previous year. largely due to the 270,000 ukrainians who submitted asylum claims in russia. while many conflicts have erupted or reignited in the past five years few have been conclusively resolved. just 126,800 refugees were able to return home in 2014, the lowest number in 31 years. i say to my colleagues, i've been to refugee camps. i've seen the suffering and pain and the hopelessness there. i was taken around by a teacher

at a refugee camp where there was about 175,000 people, as i recall in jordan, and where children around this camp in large numbers and the teacher said to me,if senator mccain, do you see all these children here? i said yes i do. she said they believe that you americans have abandoned them, and when they grow up, they're going to take revenge on you. my friends we are sowing the wind and we will reap the whirlwind and it's time that the united states assumed again a leadership role in the world. and now many of the critics who call hawk -- defense hawk mccain -- i'm not sure why the opponents are not called defense doves, fill in the blank, but anyway, that i am advocating that a large number of american troops to be dispatched to the region.

i am not. but i am saying that if we listen to the successful military leaders who succeeded in the surge in iraq and succeeded to a large degree in afghanistan, and i'm speaking of general petraeus, general king general -- admiral mccraven there is a number of people, both military and civilian ryan crocker that -- to me the most respected member of the diplomatic corps that i have ever seen. those people ought to be brought together and asked their views how we can develop a strategy, a strategy, by the way which the president of the united states just a few days ago stated is not existent. they should be called and we need to develop a strategy. there is no strategy. and these numbers of a record high of the world's displaced of

60 million half of them children perhaps we can turn this situation around. no one believes, no one believes that we are winning in the struggle against isis. we are at the negotiating table in various luxurious hotels in europe negotiating with the iranians over a nuclear deal while they are on the move in controlling foreign nations and the latest, of course, supplying weapons to the taliban. so we need to have a strategy, we need to have it inclusive we need to draw on the experience and knowledge of some of the most respected men both military political diplomatic, economic in -- that we have in this country and

come up with a strategy. and i would tell my colleagues, there is no good answer. there is no good answer. there is the least of bad option but -- options but we have to exercise an option rather than run in place for the next year and a half until we have a new president of the united states. now, this legislation is not going to solve those problems. this legislation has certain policythis legislation is not -- has not achieved the goals that i am just speaking about but this legislation does do the things that we need to do, we as the people's elected representatives whose first obligation is the defense of this nation, this legislation

addresses -- addresses many issues many issues that will make our defense establishment more responsive, more responsible, more efficient and most of all provides the equipment and the capabilities for the men and women who are serving in the military, many of them still in harm a's way so that they can defend this nation. because anybody believes that isis would be content to remain in the middle east and not export that terror to the united states of america has not listened to the director of the c.i.a. and the head of the f.b.i. and every other military expert. isis is bent on harming america. and -- when mr. baghdady spent cam puhca mr. baghdady is the leader of isis, he spent four years in iraq, when he left he said i'll see you in new york.

he wasn't kidding. isis is bent on attacking us. can they destroy us? no. but the ability of isis to be able to launch some attacks on the united states of america grows every time there are thousands of young men and some young women who go to syria and iraq and a rad -- and are radicalized even more and return sooner or later to the country from which they came. so i would ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to put aside the smaller differences that we have -- and there are differences with my colleagues on this side of the aisle concerning, for example, the sage grouse. and considering on that side of the aisle a number of other provisions in this bill. i would urge my colleagues to put aside those differences and they are in the view of many

significant differences and vote in favor of this legislation and send the message that at least on the issue of defending the nation and providing the men and women who are putting their lives on the line in our behalf, the best possible capabilities that we can possibly provide them with. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. mr. mccain: before i do that, i'd ask the article entitled "refugee crisis hits tipping point in "the washington post" this morning be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mccain: i ask that proceedings under the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: i would note for my colleagues the presence of general dunford commandant of the marine corps, most people consider to be the next chairman of the joint chiefs of staff a man we all admire a great deal. i suggest the absence of a quorum. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. roberts: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: thank you, madam president. i have four unanimous consent requests -- the presiding officer: we are in a quorum call. mr. roberts: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. roberts: i have four unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and the minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. roberts: thank you, madam president. madam president like many have said here today, i would like to express my deepest condolences to the victims of the shooting at the emanuel episcopal church

in south carolina as of last night. this was a senseless act of violence and my thoughts and prayers are with the victims their families, and all affected by this horrible tragedy. i know we all hope the perpetrator is swiftly brought to justice and i fryer the safety of the -- and i pray for the safety of the entire charleston community. this was an act of senseless violence, to be sure, but as i understand -- as i understand it the perpetrator saved one woman and told her "i want you to tell everyone what happened here. "that is beyond sinister. that is evil. and that evil must be stopped and must be dealt with. madam president, what i'd like to talk about today is the supreme court's critical ruling

on the most recent review of the affordable care act obamacare. it is important to highlight many of the ways this law is negatively impacting our health care system as a whole. my constituents in kansas, the acting presiding officer's constituents in our neighboring state of nebraska, all over the country trying to list all the problems with this law is nearly impossible. perhaps the best way is to review the promises of the president of the united states. the crafting of this law was supposed to follow his promise of being the most transparent administration in our history. the problem is, there has been a lack of transparency, not to mention the oversight of this law, since it was originally being crafted and throughout its

implementation. despite hearing the contrary from our docs and nurses about practices and hospitals closing and premiums and co-pays increasing the administration continues to turn a blind eye. the administration continually moves the goalpost through which they measure success and have claimed victory. in 2012, the congressional budget office projected there would be 14 million people enrolled in exchange plans this year. then late last year the administration backpedaled on its pro-ex-js for the second -- its projections for the second year of enrollment, moving the goalpost. the most recent data out of the c.m.s. shows that when you look at how many individuals had effectual coverage or actually paid their first month's premiums and continue to have an

active policy, that number is 10 million. madam president that's nearly 30% below the 2012 enrollment projections. that's not transparency. that is not victory. so why is this number lower? why aren't folks signing up? first we had a web site that crashed and that didn't work. then americans tried to shop around and view these policies available to them, but as it turns out the law didn't lower premiums for the average family by $2,500 -- remember that promise, as the president promised. this didn't happen. premiums are increasing. the president also promised, promised us you could keep your health care plan and your doctor. we've known for some time that's just not true. it didn't happen. just last week the president

responded to questions regarding his signature law his legacy law, if you will, at a press conference following the g-7 summit. he said -- quote -- "the thing is working." you might add that "the ning" is a -- the thing is a pretty good term for the affordable care act. the president also added -- and i quote -- "part of what's bizarre about this whole thing is we haven't had a lot of conversations about the horrors of obamacare because none of them have really come to pass." really? president obama concluded -- quote -- "it hasn't had an adverse effect on people who already had health insurance." well i'm not sure what data has been presented to the president or which american family he's been listening to, but it's certainly not the reality that i've experienced and that kansans are experiencing.

the real-life threats of this law that we hear from kansans back home have not stopped. they are increasing. a small business owner in cummings kansas, called my office to inform me that his premium this year went up over $500 a month, more than double last year's. eddie in spring hill says his premium has doubled and his deductible has doubled. he is being forced to choose between running his company and buying health insurance. he says he can't do both. let's go back to the president's comments about this thing having no adverse effect. just a couple of weeks ago his own administration published a proposed double-digit -- double-digit -- premium increases for 2016, next year.

the plans on the list affect more than six million people across the country and are seeking an average of an increase of 21%. the kansas insurance department tells us that the premiums for some individuals and small-group health care plans are likely to increase by as much as 38%. according to the administration's list, 14 insurance plans are seeking premium increases above 10% for next year. that covers 100,000 kansans when you look at just two insurance plans. those two insurance plans, they have increases of 28% and 38%. perhaps the president does not categorize these 100,000 kansans as being adversely affected by this thing. simply put premiums will continue to spiral upward if we do not act.

facts and reality are really very stubborn things, even obamacare's chief architect jonathan gruber -- we all remember jonathan gruber -- was quoted last year -- quote -- "if you made it explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed. lack of transparency is a huge political advantage said mr. gruber." and still quoting "and basically call it the stupidity of the american vote, or whatever. but basically that really, was really really critical for the thing to pass." his quote. those comments, madam president belittle the american people in trying to rationalize why when you have an agenda the government should not be transparent, and the president

and proponents of obamacare all said publicly this was the first step to nationalized health insurance. that certainly has become transparent. now not only are individuals adversely affected in terms of their own insurance coverage, but also due to the law's mandate on employers many are seeing the laws negatively and repercussions at their jobs. the law's employer mandate hinders job creation and growth. its new definition of full-time employment at 30 hours a week has been a real problem. according to one estimate, 2.6 million workers -- 2.6 million workers -- could potentially have their hours and therefore their paychecks reduced as a result of this provision. most concerning is that this new definition of full-time employment gets low-wage earners who work in the service

industries. the individuals at risk, about half work in retail and half in restaurants. if these folks were previously working the traditional 40 hours per week, you are not just taking away ten hours from them. you're reducing their paycheck by 25% a week. that's why they work in two different jobs. that is a very noticeable adverse effect. the concerns i've outlined today are only a few of the many reasons. while we need to repeal this law, both the individual and employer mandates. we need to fix health care. everybody knows that. but we don't need to fix obamacare. we need to give peace of mind to the families hurt by obamacare. now, no one is saying go back to the system that we had before. we need reforms to our health care system every day.

obamacare is costing millions of dollars. but with this law, what the president has called this thing we may have mandated greater coverage for all but not access to care and at a cost that is unaffordable. let me repeat that. we may have mandated greater coverage for all if that was the goal. but -- of my friends across the aisle. but not access to care and at a cost that is unaffordable. that's not a health care plan. perhaps some can afford the rising premiums, but can you actually go see your doctor and receive treatment? or is your deductible too high? and is your doctor still available to you? will your doctor spend at least five minutes -- five minutes -- with you or more time filling out forms or electronic medical records? and are those records secure?

any day now the supreme court will hand out its decision in king vs. burwell. this is the case that will determine the legality of the administration's regulation extending health insurance subsidies to people in states that use the federal insurance exchange. and we will see -- we will see -- if the court decides that the law should be implemented as written by this congress. most of us on this side, well, all of us on this side of the aisle voting "no" or implemented as interpreted by the administration. this is similarly troubling for kansans where we have a federally facilitated exchange. if these tax subsidies go away, 77,000 kansans and millions of americans would be affected. these individuals will be confronted with obamacare's true cost -- true cost -- and would face much higher premiums with only the administration to blame

for recklessly offering tens of billions of dollars in subsidies they had no authority to offer if the court rules that way. a ruling against the administration would also free many of these kansans from the individual mandate penalty if that coverage is too expensive for them, and they, therefore would qualify for an affordability exemption. the employer mandate penalties would also be unenforceable. employers can then add employees above the 50 threshold without fear of penalty and increase workers' hours to more than 30 hours per week. if the court invalidates the subsidies, we will be ready -- we will be ready on this side of the aisle with our solutions to help mitigate the pain for those individuals harmed by the administration and provide states greater flexibility and build a bridge away from obamacare. however the court rules i know

i am, and i know everybody on this side of the aisle will continue fighting to repeal this harmful law and replace it with true health care reforms to lower costs lift the burden on our job creators and restore the all-important relationship between a doctor and a patient. the test to fix health care, not obamacare, is coming soon. let's fix health care. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: madam president i rise today to thank colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the debate and votes that we will be casting today on the national defense authorizing act. we've come together in a bipartisan fashion and we spent significant time in committee and now on the floor to deal with countless provisions this

act if nothing if not detailed countless provisions critical to the defense of the nation. we've got a long tradition of bipartisanship in this body on the ndaa. the senate passes an ndaa in one form or another every year, and that can't be said about any other piece of legislation. and i want to congratulate the new chairman, chairman mccain; the new ranking member, chairman reed. i want to congratulate my colleagues who serve together on the committee madam president including you and also all of our staffs, both our personal staffs and committee staff. i see some committee staff here. because this is a significant amount of work. there are many important provisions in the ndaa that affect our national security, and my commonwealth of virginia which is so deeply connected to the american military. in addition to grand items the ndaa also examines in

excruciating detail some very, very fine points. just to give you a couple of examples the ndaa includes provisions dealing with storage facilities that are needed to help us combat rust on military vehicles. the transmission systems that are used in some army land vehicles the reflective markings in lights that are used on military airfields. one particular military barracks that has sewage, mold, hot water, and rodent problems. and even in the ndaa, we deal with some details of west point's football program, some of the athletic programs at west point. but after all this minute analysis and debate and discussion over the past weeks both in committee and on the floor, i do notice something a little bit strange.

while congress is very willing to debate and vote on all things great and small concerning our military, there is one thing that we don't want to debate or vote on, whether the united states should be at war. whether we should be at war with isil. we'll vote on shipbuilding. we'll vote on military pensions. we'll vote on vehicle rust. and we'll vote on barracks mold. but we don't want to vote on whether or not the nation should be at war. madam president, i proposed an amendment to the ndaa with senator flake and manchin expressing the sense of the senate that we should have an authorization debate about whether we should be at war with isil and the amendment that i proposed was ruled nongermane. barracks mold? yes. vehicle rust?

yes. the athletic programs at west point? yes. whether we should be at war? nongermane to the defense authorizing act. interestingly, we even took a vote on the floor of the senate in the ndaa about whether or not we should arm the kurds in a war that congress has not authorized that we could debate and vote, but whether we should be at war we have not debated and voted. so i went back and i looked at article 1 of the constitution and i found that there was no requirement that congress vote on barracks mold or rust prevention or military airfield lighting. now certainly we can and should take up those matters because each of those matters even if they just affect one barracks or one airfield, are about matters of safety of our troops and military personnel.

of course we should take them up. but there's nothing in the constitution that requires that we take them up and debate and vote on them. but we are required to debate and vote to authorize war. article 1 section 8 clearly declares that congress shall have the power to declare war. not the president. congress. and yet on this item, on this large item on this largest of items we are unwilling to debate and vote. the war against isil is now in its 11th month. more than 3,500 u.s. airstrikes, more than 3,000 u.s. forces now in iraq, u.s. service members and american hostages have lost their lives in the battle against isil the cost of the war to the american taxpayer now more than $2.5 billion -- that's an average cost of $9 million a day -- an the isil threat is spreading, the mission expanding in response to isil advances in

the anbar province the administration recent a nnounced that an additional 450 trainers would be deployed to train and support iraqi security forces. so my question, as a supporter strong supporter, of the ndaa is a simple one: how much longer will we allow war to be waged without congress even being willing to have a debate about the strategy and scope of the mission, how much longer will we keep asking service members to risk their lives without congress doing the basic job of authorizing this war? u.s. airstrikes started on august 8 313 days ago. let me put this in an historic perspective. the one-year anniversary of this war is pproaching quickly. congressional inaction on it is already of historic proportions. world war i it took president wilson 33 days to bring an authorization to congress. congress acted in four days. world war ii, it took president

roosevelt one day to bring an authorization to congress. congress acted in one way. president johnson brought a resolution of war in three days. congress acted five days thereafter. the invasion of kuwait in gulf gulf 1, 2 congress acting within four days in approving an authorization. the 9/11 attacks president bub came the same day to congress. it took three days for congress to afnlgt in this war against isil it took the president nearly six months to bring an authorization to congress, and it is now more than four months since that happened. 313 days and congress has said virtually nothing. now, i aappreciative that chairman corker and the ranking member have made an attempt to discuss the authorization in the committee of jurisdiction. senator flake and i have introduced a bipartisan proposal

to show that there's bipartisan support for this mission and we've been pushing to have this matter heard. yesterday in a debate on the house floor the chairman of the committee stated plainly that it's time that we -- quote -- "ought to have a real aumf debate." so i'm here to support the good work that the chair and the ranking member have done. i'm here to point out that on day 313 if we're willing to deal with narrow, small issues, we should be willing to address the most important issue we have before us. i challenge my colleagues to do this and to bring the same amount of attention and bipartisanship to debating whether we should send american troops to war as we are willing to apply to barracks mold and vehicle rust. and with that, madam president i yield the floor.

mr. mccain: madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: madam president with the bill manager's permission i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: madam president i know the bill managers are working on a final agreement and i would defer to them at this point. mr. mccain: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: the ranking member and i have a small package of amendments that have been cleared by both sides notwithstanding the provisions of rule 22 and adoption of the mccain substitute, i would ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up and agreed to en bloc:

mccain 1974, as modified 2047 as a second-degree; murkowski 2030; vitter 1472, as modified; daines 1890, coats 1705; flake 1720; gardner 1708; enzi 1980; paul 1678; hatch 1811, fisher 1825 king, 2020, menendez 2050, as modified, coons 1474, murphy 1901 warren 1902, blumenthal 1563 durbin 1703, tester 1944, as modified; casey 1747; schatz 2006 leahy 1931, ayotte 2011, ben.net 1916. these roadblock agreed to by

both sides and i want to thank all members for agreement of this package. i am a sorry it's not larger, but it is equally divided between both sides of the aisle. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent that all postcloture time on h.r. 1735 expire at 1:45 p.m. today with the time equally divided between the managers or their designees for debate only. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mccain: madam president, i had asked the members of the committee to convene in the president's room at 1:30, if they would because there is a portion of the bill, the annex that needs to be approved, and we need a quorum that are that

so that we can -- for that so that we can move forward with a final vote on the bill. i also want to thank all members on both sides sides of the aisle for the conduct of this debate and consideration of a very large and very complex piece of legislation. i especially want to thank my friend from rhode island who has worked diligently along with his staff to see that we arrived at this point. we have a lot of other hurdles to go through but without getting through this one we couldn't have been prepared for those that are laid before us before the president puts his signature on this most important piece of legislation. i'd yield to my friend from rhode island. mr. reed: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: thank you, madam president. i, too want to commend the chairman and his staff for an

extraordinarily diligent and cooperative and careful work. i'm pleased to be here to support this block of amendments. as the chairman noted, we are on the verge of passage of the legislation. then i'll be able to move forward and address other issues. and i thank the chairman for his cooperation and his great leadership. mr. mccain: madam president i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: madam president i congratulate the chairman and ranking member of the armed services committee for this who are rowic effort -- heroic effort do asing, as the chairman said the most important business that we can do as part of the federal government, and that is keeping america safe and make being sure that we keep our commitments to those who volunteer to serve many in harm's way to protect our liberties. in a couple hours we'll vote to pass the defense authorization bill and that is an important bipartisan accomplishment. it's just another step in a new

congress which has acted in a bipartisan way to deal with a number of challenges confronting the country and i'm more optimistic today than i have been in a long time that the senate is finally back to work and congress is doing what the american people, who elected us, sent us here to to to do, and that is to do their work and to represent them to the best of our ability, which is one reason why i've come to the floor to express some of my concerns at what we've heard from the democratic leadership about their intentions with regard to the next piece of legislation we turn to, the defense appropriations bill. in fact, as we all know, the democratic leader and some democrats in his caucus have threatened not to move forward on this defense appropriations bill and i wanted to talk about

the consequences in the real world of holding up this defense appropriations bill, and particularly how it affects my home state of texas. orvelgobviously, the defense appropriations bill will provide the military with resources necessary to meet the significant demands they face and we face as a country around the world but most basically to defend our country and keep us safe. this bill provides for training and readiness funds and mawks sure -- and makes sure that our troops are well-prepared to carry out any mission that might be a signed to them anywhere in the world. the appropriations bill provides the money for critical modernization of our aircraft, ships, ground vehicles, and other equipment so that our troops can fight with the best cutting-edge weapon systems at our disposal so they can accomplish their objective. and perhaps most importantly

madam president this legislation helps make sure that our troops and military families enjoy a good quality of life. we have an all-volunteer military and the family members of those who wear the uniform serve no less than the one that wears the uniform. so making sure that the families of our military members enjoy a good quality of life is very important. we'll never be automobile to repay our troops for all they've given us, but we can at least provide appropriate benefits to their families to help mawk -- to help make their lives a little easier. this bill also includes funding to actually pay our troops their salary and provides them a modest well-deserved raise. like the presiding officer i'm proud of those who serve our nation and our military in our home states. nearly 120,000 texans are

serving on active duty today, as well as more than 55,000 guardsmen and reservists. we have 15 major military installations in texas which have more than 168,000 active and reserve component service members assigned to them. these world-class bases posts air stations, and depots are critical facilities where our troops train for combat and learn the skills they need in order to accomplish their mission and where we maintain essential military equipment. so when i consider the possibility that for a cynical political reason that some might decide to block this appropriation bill that actually literally pays the salary of the troops i'm very disappointed, and i hope they will reconsider. of course, these resources that

we will vote on starting this afternoon will we'll start that process, go to places like fort bliss and fort hood texas homes to the finest heavy-combat units in the world. fort bliss sits on more than one million acres an irreplaceable training ground. it is the proud home of the army's famed first-armored division and fort hood which serves as home to both the first cavalry division has more army brigades than any other unstallations in the country. -- installations in the country. when i think about members of the senate actually considering the possibility of blocking pay for our tripes troops and support for our military, i also think about bases like dais air force base in abilene texas.

this is a key base to home units deployed time and time again in recent years in support of combat missions in iraq, afghanistan, and elsewhere including the 317th airlift group. dais is also home to the 7th bomb wing, one of only two b-1 strategic bomber wings in the united states air force. the 7th has been the tip of the spear in the fight against isil conducting airstrikes against the terrorist army in iraq and in syria. we're also proud in my state to boast the corpus christi army depot, the largest rotary wing repair facility in the world. when our army helicopters come back from battle, ming of many of them are pretty beat up, but they typically make a pit stop in corpus christi to make sure the equipment is ready for the next challenge. and between our naval air stations at corpus christi and

kingsville, texas provides the proving ground and crucible for more than 1,000 new navy and marine aviators each year. shortly after they leave texas they have found themselves in the skies over iraq or syria or landing in rough seas in near-zero visibility on aircraft care of carriers bordering hostile shores around the globe. but these bases represent only a fraction of the united states military presence in texas but all of our military installations are integral to making sure our military is prepared trained healthy and ready for action. the defense appropriations bill that some have threatened to filibuster in order to extract a negotiation about more government spending, this defense appropriations bill makes sure that the service members assigned to those bases and countless others across our

nation have what they need. we ask a lot of our men and women in uniform. the very least we can do is pass legislation that provides for their training and equipment that they need in order to accomplish their mission and to ensure them the quality of life that they and their families so richly have earned. so madam president i find it very troubling and indeed dumbfounding that some of our colleagues from across the aisle who have already voted overwhelmingly to move forward on the defense authorization bill would today talk about blocking the necessary appropriations bill to actually carry out that policy that we will pass shortly in the defense authorization bill. i believe that to be consistent after such a big vote, as i anticipate we will have on the defense authorization bill, that any notion of blocking the appropriations bill that would actually pay for those policies

to be carried out should simply evaporate. i hope our colleagues across the aisle, many of whom have said they actually support the policies behind this legislation, would defy their party's leadership and their misguided advice about blocking this legislation in order to extract a negotiation on more government spending and would decide instead to move this legislation forward. the brave men and women in texas and throughout the country who are fighting on our behalf deserve nothing less. and i hope our colleagues who are even considering for a moment the idea of blocking the funding that would actually help pay our troops would reconsider and cast their vote in support of the troops and not cast their vote in favor of some cynical political strategy which will undermine our support for our troops. madam president, i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the

clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. heinrich: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. heinrich: madam president i would ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call and to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. heinrich: president obama announced that dreamers, young people who were brought to the united states as children, would have the opportunity to apply for temporary protection from deportation through the deferred action for childhood arrivals program, what has become known as daca. today more than 660,000 young

people across this nation have benefited from did daca, including more than 7,000 in my home state of new mexico. these are some of our brightest students. they're our veterans, who no longer have to fear deportation. not only do dreamers want to earn an education and to work, they want to give back to their communities and to their country. in fact, i would suggest that dreamers don't know how to be anything but american. we hear again and again of the remarkable stories of immigrants overcoming very difficult challenges in the genuine pursuit of a better life. across the country, there are dreamers working to become doctors, working to become scientists lawyers engineers. they want to start businesses or to teach in classrooms. they want to contribute to

america's success. i had the privilege of meeting these twin sisters hazmin and yasmin earlier this year. they immigrated here to the united states with their mother from mexico when they were just three years old. as students at del norte high school they worked hard attorney good grades. as juniors and seniors, at the they actually took dual credit courses at the new mexico community college. hasmin graduated magna cum laude with a batch business administration concentrating in finance. she earned an interdisciplinary studies distinction from the unm honors college. and her sister yasmin went on to

graduate magna cum laude with a bachelor's of science in science and, a minor in chemistry and completed the university honors program. these two young women are working tirelessly to ensure that they have a better future for themselves and for their mother. in august, hasmin will begin her second year at the university of new mexico school of law and yasmin will begin her first year at the university of new mexico school of medicine. given their immigration status, the journey for hasmin and y yasmin was anything but easy. they have overcome many hardships including homelessness and hunger. after their mother, who is a single mom suffered a stroke, it was up to them to find work to support their family, to

cover her medical costs and to pay for their education. to this day there's another heavy burden that these women carry with them: it's living with the fear that at any moment their mother, who they love dearly will be deported because of her immigration status. under these circumstances, you have to ask what drives these two bright young women what keeps them going? and it's simple: they want to give back to their community. hasmin, who is currently a summer law clerk wants to be a lawyer to ensure that every person has equal access to the law. yasmin a medical assistant in the south valley, wants to be a primary care physician so that she can help families gain access to quality health care. this is who dreamers are and i

think their stories are absolutely inspiring. this young man's name is sesad a 26-year-old a daca recipient. he and his family moved from sheda to new mexico. he earned great grades and through local scholarships he enrolled at new mexico state university. he earned a bachelor degree in biology, microbiology, and spanish, not to mention minors in chemistry and biochemistry. when he graduated from college in 2011, sesad couldn't put his degrees to work because of his immigration status. so instead of working in a laboratory he went to work as a landscaper. when the president made his daca

announcement cesad immediately applied and was approved for deferred action. because of daca cesad was able to work earned an income to help pay for graduate school. this year he earned his master's degree in biology and a minor in molecular biology from new mexico state university, where he focused his research on bio and formatics. he makes a point to get involved in the local community. he's volunteered at la casa and helped with the volunteer graduate organization. he said, "once you start volunteering you wish you just had more time because you begin to love it so much. it can improve your outlook on everything you're doing." unquote. cesad's dream is to become a doctor so he can work to help prevent disease. soon he'll take a major step towards that goal. this coming school year he'll be

a medical and ph.d. student at loyola university in chicago. daca changed my life, he said. within two or three years i went from working in landscaping to becoming a medical student. the stories of cesad hasmin, and yasmun represent what makes this country great. they are inspiring and there are hundreds of thousands of dreamers like them across this country. immigrants make the united states a more prosperous nation. in new mexico, our state's remarkable history is rooted in our diversity our history and our culture which has always been enriched by our immigrant communities and their family members. my own father is an immigrant who came to america from nazi germany in the 1930's. and i'm sure many of us in this chamber have immigrant roots in

our own families which have contributed to america's success story. we are not a country that kicks out our best and brightest students. and we're not a nation that tears families apart. the current daca program is only a temporary solution. daca recipients have to renew every two years in order to maintain their deferred status. and that is no way to live. it's unfair for these dreamers to live their lives two years at a time. we desperately need robust immigration reform. now, let's step back for a moment and remember that the senate passed a comprehensive bipartisan immigration bill almost two years ago now. that bill would have modernized our immigration system to meet the needs of our economy provided an accountable pathway

to earned citizenship for the undocumented workers currently living in the shadows including making the dream act the law of the land, and it would have dramatically -- dramatically -- strengthened security at our borders. accountable immigration reform received 6 votes in this -- 68 votes in this body and demonstrated the kind of llings that we can pass -- legislation that we can pass when we do work together. as a nation, we value the twin promises of freedom and opportunity. those ideals are important no matter where you were born. however, too many of my republican colleagues don't see it that way. several of them want to rescind or even defund daca. and to roll back the progress that we've seen made over the past three years. why would we end such a successful program? what i would say to those who would do this is come back to

the table. and work with us to pass immigration reform. we need pragmatic solutions to fix our broken immigration laws, and we need them now. let's make the dream a reality after all. madam president, i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call under rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate be waived with respect to the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to h.r. 2685. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: madam president, i want to say something about the terrible news out of charleston. this is a true tragedy that something like this could occur at a house of worship makes it even worse. it's always awful when one of these things happen, but to happen at a house of worship makes it even worse.

churches should be a place of refuge a place where people feel safe and secure, a place of mercy, a place of compassion. the depth of loss these families must be feeling is simply awful. so i want the american people to know the senate is thinking of them today and the victims that they love. we're also thinking of the entire congregation at this historic church. we'll continue to do so as more about this -- we'll continue to do so as more about this tragedy is learned in the hours and days to come. but our hearts go out to the families who have been affected by this awful tragedy. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the

clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

tywanza sanders youngest victim quorum call:

mr. reed: mr. president? ferraro the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: mr. president, i would request dispensing with the calling of the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: thank you mr. president. after almost three weeks, we are completing consideration of the fiscal year 2016 national defense authorization bill. i again want to thank senator mccain for what has largely been a bipartisan, serious

consideration of issues important to the department of defense and to the national security of the united states. he has led the way initially with a series of very, very thoughtful hearings with foreign policy experts setting the context for our debate. then we listened to our uniformed military leaders and our defense department fishes, and -- defense department officials, and in the process of bringing it to the committee there was a collaboration inspired by his commitment, which he's always democrat strategied to do what he -- demonstrated to do it what he thought was in the best for the men and women in the military of the united states. we are getting ready to consider a major piece of legislation on behalf of the men and women of the armed forces of the united states and the country. we have considered many issues. we were briefly sidetracked by the cyber amendment. we all understand that the cyber

bill is absolutely critical. i think it has to be addressed as soon as possible. that's probably the next piece of business we should take up in this senate. but it was brought up in a procedural unexpected way and in a way in which we could not commit to the full consideration it deserves. so once again i think we should commit ourselves as a senate to bring this bill up as rapidly as possible. in fact, i would suggest the next major piece of legislation. but, in the process of considering this national defense act we brought a bill to the floor which had some very thoughtful and important provisions. 600 amendments were filed. we were able to consider many of them. both republicans and democrats either through votes on the floor in a very open process or through a managers' package which we put together and

approved. we debated on very important issues. interrogation techniques sexual assault in our military, u.s.-iraq policies and elsewhere i think it goes to prove this bill is better than it was when it left committee. there is one however one overarching problem that remains with this bill and it is one that i consistently pointed to and consistently argued that has to be corrected and it's the fact that the bill is funded through the o.c.o. accounts in a significant way using an escape valve for the budget control act which o.c.o. provides defense exclusively. essentially this is the defense funding mechanism. and as a result, what we're

confronted with is a bill that is overrelied upon the overseas contingency accounts and ironically provides the same level of resources the president has but instead of putting in the base budget, it grows o.c.o. from roughly $50 billion to $90 billion. that is all deficit spending, so this is not a way in which we're improving our fiscal situation. we're just adding $40 billion of deficit spending. so the other aspect of this which is so critical is that we are -- if we adhere to the budget control act not adequately funding other agencies. and many of these other agencies are as vital to our national security as the department of defense. the f.b.i., homeland security, the state department. we've had speakers on the floor talk about rightfully so, this huge refugee crisis we're seeing all through the middle east because of the instability in iraq and syria.

those refugees, when we try to help them, that help is typically sent through the state department through usaid and those agencies and they are still within the sequester caps. as a result, i was very pleased to offer both in the committee and on the floor an amendment that would essentially say let's stop for a second. we have this $39 billion of additional o.c.o. spending that we're giving to the department of defense because its not subject to b.c.a. before we do that, let's put a fence around let's just say that money is there because we recognize the needs of the department of defense are critical and have to be fulfilled. but it's going to stay there until we fix the underlying issue in my view, and that's the b.c.a. act. the sequestration levels that will affect state department, every other department in the

government. we had a very good debate, and i thank again the chairman for encouraging that debate, allowing it to take place and then coming to a vote. we lost 54-46. we had strong support on our side of the aisle but it was a fair and full debate, and we lost. the result, though, is the problem remains. we are in a situation where if we continue down this pathway we will see the o.c.o. bill, o.c.o. account as an escape valve for defense where everyone else is subject to sequestration. and i don't think that's good. i don't think it's good to defense. it's certainly not good for these other agencies and it's not good for our national security. there are many that say don't worry about that. this is just an authorization bill, that the appropriations bill is where we'll have the appropriate discussion and debate. i think that's going to happen. but my view is that if

authorization and appropriations are so closely related that we couldn't ignore one and we couldn't ignore this. so again, i think that we have to recognize that underpinning this authorization bill, with all of its worthy programs, is this very difficult issue of overreliance on o.c.o. funding. there are some that say well, even so, it's a one-year fix. i don't think that's the case at all. i think if we use these types of as some call, gimmicks, accounting tricks once, our tendency to use them again will be there. once we've used it once, it is easy to use it two three four, five times. we've had discussions on the floor, for example interesting enough about how medical research in the department of defense went from $25 million in 1992 to $1 trillion today.

well the answer is easy. back then, because we had similar -- not identical similar arrangements where we capped domestic and discretionary spending but uncapped defense spending, people went to where the chairman has referred to, the willie sutton approach, where the money was. it was defense. and it's grown it's grown it's grown and it's grown. and i think that's what is going to happen again if we take this trajectory, this pathway using o.c.o. i sense we have to make tough decisions today that will benefit us in the long run. one of those tough decisions and one that i make very reluctantly is to oppose this legislation. it is a worthy legislation in many many respects. i think we've got to fix this problem and i think we have to fix it now. and i've tried in my efforts to focus the attention on the need to correct the b.c.a., the need to get us on a sustainable pathway where we do include

within the base of the department of defense those funds they need to operate and o.c.o. really is for overseas contingency operations. let me conclude my comments by saying there's been tremendous cooperation and support. it starts with the chairman, but i particularly want to thank his staff director chris bose, his great work. i have to thank my colleagues on the democratic side: liz king and garry leeland creighton green, john clark jonathan epstein, carolyn shuta ozga guz lesa and liz king, once again. let me thank the floor staff. i've come to appreciate more than i ever knew how vital a role they play on both sides of the aisle and i thank them for what they've done. finally, this bill has some extraordinarily good provisions

in it. many of them are tough hard, path-breaking provisions that are there because the chairman decided he was going to go all in in many different aspects from acquisition to troop support efforts to incorporating provisions at the commission on pay and retirement, all those things. and i commend him for that. it's just that i think i have to stand and say we've got to fix this issue with respect to the underpinning fundamental budget approach which says we'll let b.c.a. stand for every other agency but we'll be able to exploit in a way this o.c.o. exception, and we'll use it. i think that's not the path we want to pursue. with that, and again with my thanks to the chairman, i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: a message from the house of representatives.

the house reading clerk: mr. president, a message from the house of representatives. mr. president? the presiding officer: the clerk. the house reading clerk: i have been directed by the house of representatives that the house has passed the amendment senate to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to allow federal law enforcement officers firefighters and air traffic controllers to make penalty-free withdrawals from governmental plans after age 50 and for other purposes in which the concurrence of the senate is requested. the presiding officer: the message will be received. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president as we approach a final vote on the national defense authorization act, i want to take this opportunity to thank my friend and colleague from rhode island, senator reed. despite his lack of substantive education somewhere on the hudson river he has been

thoughtful bipartisan, and he's maintained that throughout the consideration of this legislation. we've worked together through hundreds of amendments in markup and hundreds more during the past two weeks. and obviously we have some differences from time to time. senator reed has never stopped searching for common ground and consensus. so this legislation would not be what it is without his leadership and his cooperation. i would just remind my friend, however, the title of this legislation is to authorize appropriations. to authorize appropriations. not to appropriate but to authorize appropriations. that is the task of the appropriations committee. and so, the o.c.o. issue which he and i are largely in

agreement with, should have been repeal of sequestration. that is an issue that should be addressed where the authority lies in appropriations. not in authorization. we can't increase our decrease a single penny of authorization except what was given to us through the budget committee process which was votes and decisions made on this floor on the budget. so i say with respect and friendship if there is a problem here, it's not with the authorization. it's not with the authorization. we don't spend a penny. we authorize the expenditure of money and that is an issue that my friend from rhode island and i disagree with. but it did not prohibit him and me and our staffs and members of the committee on both sides of the aisle from working on a

piece of legislation that in my view, which is clearly subjective, is a reform bill a reform bill working together that is almost unprecedented, at least in the last 30 years when you look at the extent and the nature of the reforms in this legislation. i want to thank the majority leader senator mcconnell for his commitment to rouge regular order. -- to resuming regular order. the senate has been able to take up national security legislation on time allowing for thoughtful consideration of amendment. this is how the senate should operate. regular order on time, giving our military the certainty they need to plan and execute their missions. for 53 consecutive years congress has passed the national defense authorization act. that's a testimony to the vital importance of this legislation which provides the necessary funding and authority for our

military to defend the nation. but perhaps at no time in the last half century has this legislation ever been so critical. over the past few months the senate armed services committee has received testimony from many of america's most respected statesmen, thinkers and former military commanders. these leaders had a common warning, and that warning is clear. america is facing the most diverse and complex array of crises since the second world war. and i won't go into all the different events that have taken place that authenticate that assertion by the most respected leaders both that served under both republican and democrat administrations. we faced challenges before. we marshaled our soft and hard power to defend the rules based on national order. that is the foundation of our prosperity and security. we deterred aggression, defended

allies defeated adversaries and built peace through strength. as we look at our challenges today, the question being asked all over the world by both friend and foe alike and the question we must now answer, are we equal to those challenges again? there's only so much one piece of legislation can do to answer that question, but the national defense authorization act before the senate today is a strong first step toward rising to the challenge of an increasingly dangerous world. this is an ambitious piece of legislation, but in the times we live, we cannot afford business as usual in the department of defense. to prepare our military to confront our present and future national security challenges, we must champion the cause of defense reform, rigorously root out pentagon waste and invest in next generation technologies to

maintain our military advantage. that's what this legislation is all about. it's a reform bill. it tackles acquisition reform. headquarters and management reform military retirement reform personnel reform. the bill authorizes every dollar of the president's budget request of $612 billion but focuses these resources more directly on our war fighters. the armed services committee identified $10 billion of excess and unnecessary spending in the budget request and we reinvested those savings in the military capabilities our troops need to succeed and we did all of this while upholding our commitments to our service members, retirees and their families. my friends america's military technological advantage is eroding and eroding fast, and one of the primary causes of this is a broken defense acquisition system that takes too long, costs too much and wastes billions of dollars

often on weapons programs that never become operational and with no one ever being held responsible. that's why this legislation includes the most sweeping acquisition reforms in a generation. we put the services back into the acquisition process create new mechanisms to ensure accountability for results streamline regulation and open the defense acquisition process to our nation's innovators. this bill advances unprecedented reforms to our military retirement system. under the current 70-year-old system 83% of service members leave the service without any retirement assets. this system excludes the vast majority of current service members who will not complete 20 years of uniform service including many veterans of the wars in afghanistan and iraq. the ndaa creates a modernized retirement system and extends

retirement benefits to the vast majority of service members through a new plan offering more value and choice. under this new plan, 75% of service members would get retirement benefits. this reform is estimated to save $15 billion a year in the out years. in addition to retirement reform, ndaa focuses on improving the quality of life of our military service members retirees and their families. it authorizes 1.3% pay raise for members of the uniformed services in the grade of 06 and below, $30 million in support for schools that serve military dependent children, including those with severe disabilities. it includes many provisions to improve the military health system and tricare. the ndaa allows a tricare beneficiary up to four urgent care visits without making them get a preauthorization and requires the department of defense to focus more on health care quality patient safety and

beneficiary satisfaction by making them publish health outcome measures on their web sites. it builds on military justice reforms of the past few years to be prevent and respond to military sexual assault. it contains a number of provisions aimed at strengthening the authorities of special victims council to provide services to victims of sexual assault. it enhances confidential reporting options for victims of sexual assault and increases access to timely disclosure of certain materials and information connected -- in connection with the prosecution of offenses. on management reform, it ensures that the department of defense and the military services are using precious defense dollars to fulfill their missions to defend the nation, not expand their bloated staffs. while staff at army headquarters increase 60% over the past decade the army is now cutting brigade combat teams.

the air force evaded mandated cuts to headquarters personnel by creating two new headquarters entities while at the same time complaining it had insufficient personnel to maintain combat aircraft. the ndaa directed targets -- directs targeted reductions in headquarters and administrative staff that would generate $1.7 billion in savings in just the next fiscal year. with these savings and billions more identified, this bill invests in providing critical military capabilities for our war fighters and meeting unfunded priorities of our service chiefs and combatant commanders. even as challenges to maritime security increase in the middle east, in the western pacific and pressures on our ship-building budget increase, the navy remains well below its fleet-sized requirement of 306 ships. the ndaa directs savings identified in the budget request to accelerate navy

modernization, shipbuilding, mitigate impacts of the ohio class ballistic missile submarine replacement and to grow the navy to meet rising steps. as adversaries seek to counter and thwart american military power, the ndaa looks to the future and invests in the technologies that will maintain america's military technological superiority provides $400 million in additional funding to support the so-called third offset strategy to outpace our emergency -- our emerging adversaries. it entails robust assistance to our allies and partners as they confront urgent challenges, nearly $3.8 billion in support of the afghan security forces. after an overwhelming bipartisan vote on an amendment offered by senator feinstein and myself, the ndaa reaffirms the prohibition on torture and ensure that every u.s. government agency always applies the same effective humane

interrogation standards as the u.s. military. past interrogation policies compromised our values, stained our national honor and did little practical good. this legislation provides greater assurances that never again will the united states follow that dark path of sacrificing our values or our short-term security needs. i thank senator feinstein for her hard work on this vitally important issue. finally, legislation contains a bipartisan compromise on how to address the challenge of the detention facility of guantanamo bay. president obama has said from day one of his presidency that he wants to close guantanamo, but six and a half years into his administration, the administration has never provided a plan to do so. this legislation requires the administration to submit that plan. we're simply asking the executive branch to explain

where it will hold those set for trial, how it will continue to detain dangerous terrorists pursuant to the laws of war and how it will mitigate the risks of moving this population. if the administration can provide answers to these basic questions to the satisfaction of the american people and their elected representatives then congressional restrictions on the movement of these detainees will be lifted and the plan can be implemented. if the congress does not approve the plan, nothing would change. the ban on domestic transfers would stay in force. and the certification standards for foreign transfers included in the ndaa would remain. my friends america has reached a key inflection point. the rules-based international order which has been anchored by u.s. hard power for seven decades is being seriously stressed and with it the foundation of our security and prosperity. it does not have to be this way.

we can choose a better future for ourselves make the right decisions now and set our nation on a better course. that is what this legislation is all about. living up to our constitutional duty to provide for the common defense, increasing the effectiveness of our military and restoring america's global leadership. this legislation is a small step towards accomplishing these goals, but it is an important step we can take right now together. we owe the brave men in uniform nothing less. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the assistant democratic leader. mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: the yeas and nays be called on the pending -- the presiding officer: under the previous order all postcloture time is expired. the clerk will read the title of the bill for the third time. the clerk: calendar number 99, h.r. 1735, an act to authorize appropriation for fiscal year 2016 for military activities of the department of defense and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: the question now occurs on h.r. 1735 as amended. mr. durbin: mr. president, 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: are there any senators who wish to vote or to change their vote? hearing none, the vote on h.r. 1735 as amended is 71 in favor 25 opposed. the bill is approved. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader.

mr. mcconnell: the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: order in the chamber. order in the chamber. the majority leader. order. the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president i understand the democratic leader would like to make some remarks. the presiding officer: the minority leader. mr. reid: to respond to the majority leader, i have nothing to say until i hear what he has to say. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president america asks a lot of the men and women of its volunteer military force to undertake dangerous missions in faroff lands, to spend months and years away from their families and always to sacrifice so that we might live in freedom. these brave men and women do it all without reservation. they ask precious little in return save for the resources they need to do the job and the support they need to look after their families. it's the least we can do to provide for them, and we just

voted 71-25 in a bill -- for a bill that promises a lot of things to our men and women. it would be very cruel indeed for any senator who just made that promise to turn around now and block the rest of us from fulfilling the pledge to our troops. passing the legislation before us is a way to fulfill a promise that we just made 71-25. that's why nearly every democrat voted to pass it in committee 27-3. that's why democrats have hailed this bill as a win-win-win and a victory for each of their states. they know it gives president obama the same level of funding he asked for. they know it adheres to a bipartisan spending level that both parties agreed to, that president obama signed into law and that president obama campaigned on in the last presidential election. so now our friends face the choice.

option one option one allow the promise just made to our troops to be fulfilled by voting for a bill they can't stop praising. option two break the promise they just made by killing a bill they claim to love, all in the service of some unrelated and completely incomprehensible partisan plan. it's the road to bipartisanship and support for our troops that brought us this far. we shouldn't let partisan politics trip us up now and we don't have to, not if commonsense democrats continue to prioritize pay raises and medical care for our troops over some unrelated gamut to funnel more cash to bureaucracies like the i.r.s. and the e.p.a. so i would just leave my colleagues with something one of our democratic friends said of men and women in the military. here's what he had to say. just as we have called on them

to protect us, they're now calling on us, on us to provide them with the resources they need. they are. senators just promised they would, 71-25 just made the promise. so now they shouldn't block us from fulfilling that promise by preventing us from getting on the defense appropriation measure. the presiding officer: the minority leader. mr. reid: could we have order. the presiding officer: order please. mr. reid: mr. president the bill that just passed the senate the defense authorization bill has 52 republicans voting to fix sequester. 52. only two voted against it. we all are in favor of fixing sequester. my friend the republican leader is talking in a dreamland. ash carter, the secretary of defense, a very good man we're so fortunate he dedicated his life to public service he

is a scientist he's worked for the defense establishment for a while in public service. he the secretary of defense says that this bill that my friend talks about is a bad bill. it doesn't help the military. this funny funding that is in this bill is not good. the chairman of the appropriations committee was on -- i'm sorry the chairman of the armed services committee was on the floor this morning talking about that. so mr. president it's important that we solve the sequester problem. it is not good. but we cannot, we cannot and we should not fix part of our government and not the other part. the pentagon we support. we support the troops, of course we do. but as the secretary of defense has so implored us, don't do this to the military. to have a secure nation, it's

more than the people who are in our armed services. the people in the armed services while their families are at home want to be protected at an airport, the t.s.a. needs to be funded the drug enforcement administration, homeland security needs to be funded. and, mr. president in the process we need to fund education properly. we need to fund research for health. we need to make sure the nation -- the institutes of health are not whacked again. they lost $1.6 billion. they've never gotten the money back. do we want to give them another sequestration? of course we don't. we have until this fiscal year ends in the fall to work this out. and that's what we should do. we are legislators. i agree with the 52 republicans that said we should fix sequestration because i agree

also. so let's sit down and do what we as legislators are supposed to do. legislation is the art of compromise. we're not going to get everything we want but the republicans shouldn't get everything they want and we should not fund this government doing funny money on the defense and doing the really unfunny money on the rest of the government. it is unfair and above all the republican party which used to stand for fiscal responsibility should get fiscally responsible and help us work out of this. we are ready and willing any time to sit down and work through this. and, mr. president we need to start that now. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: as the democratic leader reminded me on a virtually daily basis for eight years, the majority leader always gets the last word. and so here's the issue of the

i say to my friends on the other side. you just voted for the troops. now you're going to vote against them? are you going to vote against the troops right after you voted for the troops? that's the fundamental question before us, in deciding whether to go to the defense appropriations measure. mr. reid: i know my friend gets the last word. i'm looking forward to his last word. however, mr. president the logic of my friend is illogical. we stand on our record and we'll continue in that fashion. the presiding officer: the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the in accordance do hereby move to bring to a close the motion to proceed on h.r. 26585 making appropriations for the

department of defense and soy forth 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 the motion to proceed to h.r. 2685 an act making appropriations for the department of defense for the year ending september 30, 2016 and for other purposes shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not on the motion to ip voke cloture on the motion to proceed to h.r. 2685 the yeas are 50 and the nays are 45. three-fipplesfinals offifths of the senators not having voted in the affirmative the motion is not agreed to. the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i have a motion to reconsider the vote. the presiding officer: motion is entered. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to morning business with senators permitted to speak up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: thank you mr. president. i rise today to introduce a resolution to mark world refugee

day, june 20, and to address the growing global crisis of people forcibly displaced by persecution and conflict. according to the united nations high commissioner for refugees, for the first time since world war ii, over 60 million people have been forced from their homes and displaced in their own countries or forced to flee abroad. yet last year alone 14 million people were up-rooted by violence and persecution most escaping conflicts in syria iraq south sudan ukraine burma and afghanistan. there are more and more protracted crises, and the result is an increase in humanitarian needs. the worldwide displacement from wars conflicts and persecution in 2014 was the highest level recorded and accelerating fast to 60 million last year from

52.1 million in 2013, a dramatic increase from the 37.5 million a decade ago. we're on course to over double the number of refugees worldwide. the increase since 2013 was the highest ever seen in a single year. syria is still the world's largest producer of internally displaced persons at 7.6 million, and refugees at 4 million. the 60 million i previously mentioned can be broken down at 20 million refugees, 38 million internally dplaised persons and 1.8 million asylum seekers. the magnitude of the syrian disaster is perhaps the most shocking. after four years of conflict, the situation is increasingly desperate for both the refugees in host countries like jordan, lebanon, dur can turkey and northern

iraq. 4 million people have fled syria. the futures of over 3 million syrian children have been stolen because they have no access to education. over 2 million syrian women are in the neighboring countries trying to survive. dangerous coping mechanisms are on the rise. more and more families are forced to send their children to work or mare off their young -- or marry off their young daughters. in leb lebanon, there are millions of children with no access to school. it is hard to comprehend the demographic and social impact of millions of refugees in jordan, lebanon and thank you can i. the number of refugees would be equivalent to 8.1 million refugees arriving in the united states. turkey has already spent $6 billion in direct assistance to refugees in its care.

at the same time, many countries in the west have been extraordinarily reluck reluctant to admit refugees. while contributing to humanitarian funding the united states has only accepted about 900 syrian refugees because syrians are finding it increasingly difficult to find safety, they are being forced to move further afield. since january over 100,000 people mostly from syria have crossed the mediterranean in boats in search of protection from europe. an ex-strombly dangerous journey. we know that the syrian humanitarian disaster, which has destabilized an entire region, is not the accidental by-product of conflict. it is instead one result of a strategy pursued by the assad regime. the u.n. commission has documented that the assad regime engaged in bombardment of homes

schools, hospitals in order to terrorize the civilian population. isil and al-nusra have also shelled areas with high concentration of civilians. in syria's neighbor next door iraq number of people requiring humanitarian assistance has grown to 8.2 million people. 3 million people have been forced from their homes. half of the displaced are children. to the south in yemen, there is a grave and escalating humanitarian crisis. the country was particularly vulnerable even before this conflict. now civilians throughout the country are facing alarming levels of suffering and violence. over 1 million have been forced from their homes and are now living in empty schools and other public buildings. or along highways. we are also witnessing religious and ethnic persecution become part of the violent conflict

that has pushed millions of people out of the region of sub-sahara african-american. the tragedy in south sudan which is the most frustrating to me never should have happened. the violence engulfing that small country is manmade and wholly the responsibility of the president and opposition leader and affiliate militias and armed groups. each leader refuses to prioritize the well-being of his own people and instead continues to seek military advantage violating multiple cease-fire agreements and refusing to meet numerous deadlines for reaching a peace deal. it is hard to overstate the gravity of conditions in south sudan, and i fear there is no end in sight for the suffering of the people there. the 18-month conflict in south sudan has already killed an estimated 50,000 people and displaced over two million more, including a half a million who have fled to neighboring

countries and over 120,000 sheltering in united nations peacekeeping bases across the country. a nationwide famine was averted in 2014, thanks largely to the assistance from the international community. but the world food program recently warned that 4.6 million people, nearly half the population will need food aid by the end of this month. conditions in the country of sudan are hardly better for those affected by the continuing conflict in darfur, a tax on u.n. peacekeepers are on the rise in darfur. military offenses by the khartoum have caused well over 50,000 people to flee their homes this year. khartoum has also expelled international nongovernmental agency n.g.o. and is trying to drive out the peacekeeping mission in darfur. this does not include the

hundreds of thousands of people who have fled the violence in the blue nile states but there has been little information about conditions in government-held areas in both states as sudan has not allowed human rights investigators access. in northeastern nigeria 1.5 million people fleld their homes due to attacks by the terrorist group boko haram. it is estimated to have killed over 12,000 people, kidnapped thousands, including 276 girls from a school whose whereabouts remain unknown. over 74,000 nigerian refugees in cameroon and other00,000 refugees in the area. the trend is alarming. the international assistance being provided is not keeping pace with the scale of the problem. for example almost halfway through 2015, u.n. humanitarian appeal for syria is only 20% funded and yet the spirit of the world refugee day we must

redouble our efforts to prevent conflicts that force families to flee their homes villages and cities. we must also create the conditions to get these refugees safely back home. first, we need to ask ourselves hard questions about how we can increase the effectiveness of the assistance we provide. most refugees live in urban areas, not in traditional refugee camps. refugees who live in cities face unique vulnerabilities which must change how international assistance is now being given. protracted cases are the new normal. 75% of the world refugees are caught until long-term crisis situations with many refugees displaced for an average of 17 years. we need to use our humanitarian and development dollars more skillfully so that we are providing durable solutions to chronic vulnerabilities. second the international community must give serious --

get serious about protecting the most vulnerable refugees, women and children. women are facing horrible threats in conflicts across the globe where rape and sexual assault are being used as weapons of war and as vulnerable refugees they continue to be targets of gender-based violence. moreover, children now make up half of all refugees worldwide. we must do more to protect them from sexual exploitation and abuse, recruitment as child soldiers and early marriages. the united nations fund, mercy corps and catholic relief services know how to provide support and protection to women and children refugees but we in the international community must fund them adequately to do the job. third, we must strengthen the capacity of u.n. peacekeeping. as david mullaban, former british u.n. secretary noted, at

the time of cuts in defense budget new threats and record numbers of people fleeing conflict, the case of strengthening and more sharing of u.n. peacekeeping is overwhelming. peacekeepers properly resourced and led have never been more needed and the consequences of inaction never more evident. mr. speaker finally we must do more to hold accountable the leaders for humanitarian activities. the u.n. leader for refugees says he continues to be shocked by those who share the responsibility for millions of people being uprooted from their homes. they accept it forced displacement with its impact on individuals, on countries communities, entire regions as normal collateral damage of the world they lead. they act with the conviction that humanitarian workers will come and pick up the pieces. it is clear that the

international humanitarian community can no longer stand -- staunch the human misery brought on by callous indifference and criminal leadership. the international community must hold those accountable who break all the rules pursuant -- in pursuit of their war aims. to that end, it was a grave mistake between october 2011 and july 2012, russia and china vetoed three security council resolutions designated to hold the syrian government to account for its mass atrocities. it was also unfortunate that the sudanese president was allowed to depart south africa earlier this week without being detained again, escaping an arrest warrant from the international criminal court where he would be on trial for crimes against humanity committed in darfur. in closing we must recognize that these conflicts proliferate no corner of the world will be left unaffected.

on world refugee day we recognize that every person fleeing his or her home deserves compassion and help and to live in safety and dignity. we must recommit to work smarter and harder to assist the world's most vulnerable people. mr. president, next year on this day i want to stand before the senate again and speak of the progress we have made in and the lives we have saved by our collective efforts. history will judge us accordingly if we fail. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: same coast. plbmr. president, thank you. i rise to talk about a constituent of mine -- the presiding officer: the senator is from washington is advised we're in a quorum call. mrs. murray: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: i rise today talk about a constituent of mine. ilsa is a 23-year-old graduate who works at seattle children's hospital studying to be a nurse. she has face add lot of challenges in her 23 years not the least of which was being diagnosed with cancer when she was a teenager going through treatment and working to put herself through college. and if the outstanding costs of cancer treatment weren't difficult enough for her the if a ct that ilsa was brought to

the united states by her mother when she was six months old as an undocumented immigrant makes navigating our health care system even harder. ilsa persevered through her cancer treatment. she worked her way through high school with an impressive list of extra kurk lars and went on to earn a scholarship that eventually got her to the front steps of the university of washington. now, when i met ilsa back in 2013 she told me that after 15 years of waiting for her petition to obtain a visa, she lost the opportunity to obtain legal residency when she turned 21 years old. thanks to the deferred action for childhood arrivals policy, daca she had a second chance. she said she doesn't know where she would be right now without that second chance. she told me that daca opened doors that were previously closed to her. and thanks to the increased certainty daca brought and the amazeing work ethic she has ilsa

was able to find jobs that helped her pay her way through school. today she is able to continue to pursue her dream of helping others as a nurse and build a life in washington state her home. i'm happy to report that ilsa has now been cancer-free for over 14 years so while i rise to talk about ilsa, i also want to celebrate daca. three years ago this week, americans celebrated and historic step forward in protecting young undocumented immigrants known as dreamers, people like ilsa. when daca was enacted the national dialogue on immigration policy forever changed. the administration's announcement that america is not a place that will deport someone who plays by the rules but through no fault of their own is an undocumented immigrant someone who has known no other home than the united states, someone who is an american all but by name. this was a major step toward changing the lives of so many immigrant families.

during the past three years more than 600,000 young immigrants have been benefited from deferred action, and in my home state of washington, almost 15,000 dreamers have been able to receive the stability and peace of mind that daca brought. too often in this debate it's difficult for some people to understand that millions of undocumented families in our country are already an important part of our community. immigrants documented or not work hard. they send their children to schools throughout this country. they pay their taxes and they help weave the fabric of our society. in all but name, they are americans, and america would not be the same without them. despite the steps in administration has taken only legislation from congress can solve the underlying problem of a very broken immigration system so i'm here today to say i stand ready to work with my colleagues on both the sides of the aisle to achieve that. because until congress truly passes a comprehensive immigration reform, i'm going to continue working each day to

help the families and businesses people like ilsa, who are trapped by a broken system. we must never forget the past and the fact that our nation has long offered general generations of immigrants a chance a chief their dreams. sail is no different. -- ilsa is no different. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: thank you. the senator from washington. mr. sullivan: mr. president i wanted to talk today about the national defense authorization act. it was just passed on the floor after almost three weeks of debate on the senate floor today. very strong bipartisan majority passed this very, very important bill. but first mr. president, i would like to start by offering

prayers and thoughts, i think of every member of the senate to the families of those who were killed in last night's horrific who arehorrific shooting in south carolina. no words can undo the incredible pain that they're going through but i think knowing that members of this body, the entire u.s. congress are thinking and praying for these families is something that i wanted to just state on the senate floor here before i started to talk about this very important bill. so mr. president as i mentioned, we passed the ndaa this afternoon after almost three weeks of debate, and i do want to extend congratulations to the leadership, particularly of the chairman of the senate armed services committee senator mccain, and the ranking member, senator reed, who did such an outstanding job

in terms of working in a bipartisan fashion on this bill. you know, in many ways this bill is about something that's so critical to american foreign policy and national security interests. what is that? it's credibility the credibility of the united states states. in many ways it's the coin of the realm in international security how our friends how our allies and how our adversaries view american credibility, particularly in the realm of national security, international affairs and foreign policy. they pay close attention to what we are doing on this floor, in the white house and overseas.

credibility. unfortunately, mr. president as many are aware both at home and certainly overseas, we are rapidly losing credibility around the world. in fact, much of the world is puzzled. what's happening to american credibility? terms of foreign policy -- in terms of foreign policy. we used to be the shining beacon on the hill. countries that wanted to do us harm didn't because they feared us. our allies respected and trusted us but unfortunately mr. president, that's starting to change. it is changing. red lines have been crossed with no consequences in places like syria ukraine russia the

iranian negotiations. many say american credibility has declined. some say american credibility overseas is in shambles. nations that once counted on us as friends as allies, are having a harder time trusting the united states. and in some ways are even suspicious of our motives and our policies. so it's a critical, critical issue. how do we, as a country regain credibility in the world? it's something that everybody in this body, everybody in the federal government should be focused on. well mr. president the ndaa bill that we just passed, the national defense authorization act, is a way to start regaining credibility for our country. and we did that this afternoon. a very strong bipartisan

majorities in the senate, 71 senators voted to pass this very important -- one of the most important bills that we're going to vote on all year. and this is an important signal. u.s. foreign policy, our national security, is strongest when we act in a bipartisan manner as we did on the senate floor today and when the executive and legislative branches are working together. on foreign policy and national security issues. and that's what this bill does. in many ways this bill does pretty much exactly what the president has asked in a whole host of areas regarding the military. for example it funds the department of defense at the levels requested by the president of the united states. many of the key programs, many of the key reforms. again, i want to congratulate chairman mccain, ranking member reed on such a powerful

bill that got through this -- that got through the senate floor today. the bill also strongly endorses one of the president's signature foreign policy issues, the rebalance of our military focus to the asia pacific. there are many provisions in the ndaa that support this rebalance strategy. most members republicans and democrats, of this body are supportive of the president's rebalance strategy. there's even a directive in the bill from the congress to the department of defense and our military leaders that states -- quote -- "in order to properly implement the u.s. rebalance policy, united states forces under operational control of the u.s.-pacific command should be increased.

not decreased. increased. that's strong language. that's supporting the president's rebalance. the department of defense needs to heed this language from congress and of course we will be keeping a close eye on whether or not if they do. so the ndaa just passed on the floor helps. it can help. it will help restore america's credibility in the world. but it would be another blow to our credibility to u.s. credibility globally if after all the hard work that has gone into this bill, after the strong bipartisan support that this bill achieved that the president would then decide to veto the ndaa. what would the world think of that? what would the world think of our commitment to our troops, a bill strongly passed in the house and senate to fund the

u.s. military to set policies that support the president's policies if he was going to then veto the bill. mr. president, this would further undermine u.s. credibility in the world right at a moment when the congress is trying to be supportive and rebuild this credibility. and after today's vote, after the ndaa, it's not clear that members of this body are going to move forward to actually appropriate the money to fund the military. so think about that. the ndaa passed, strong bipartisan passage out of the armed services committee. strong bipartisan -- strong bipartisan support on the senate floor this afternoon. and the president of the united states vetoes it. that's not going to help

american credibility. and now we're moving to defense appropriations. again, strong bipartisan support out of the appropriations committee, and yet we're hearing rumors that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not going to fund the military, that they're going to filibuster this bill. playing politics with the funding of our defense, of the funding of our men and women in uniform is not going to help enhance american credibility anywhere. and i think members are going to have a hard time explaining votes that don't look to fund the men and women who so courageously defend us day in, day out h here and abroad. it just doesn't make sense mr. president. we have to recognize that these actions that are being taken on the floor, in the white house are not only being watched by

americans, but they're being watched by our allies and our adversaries overseas. that's why another way to start the restore america's credibility in the world and to support the president's and the white house's rep balance strategy in the asia-pacific is next week to pass trade promotion authority. we've all talked about that. we've debated that on the p floor here for many weeks. it will help increase jobs. it will make sure that we, the united states, are setting the rules of the road for international trade and the asia pacific, not china. but it also goes to america's credibility. america's credibility. you know, mr. president, i had the honor of traveling a couple weeks ago with chairman mccain and ranking member reed, the senator from iowa, nor -- senator ernst to veto and

singapore. -- to vietnam and singapore. we met with the prime minister of singapore. all of the discussion was on american engagement in the asia pacific. they want us there. they want us leading. but the consensus was if we can't move forward on t.p.a., it would be disastrous for our credibility. so again the world is watching. we can't afford losing u.s. credibility in another region of the world. and i'm hopeful that next week, as this bill comes to the floor of the united states senate, that we will once again vote to pass trade promotion authority because that goes to not only helping spur economic growth, greater job growth in our own country, it goes to american leadership and credibility in

the world. finally, mr. president i'd like to talk about another area of the world where u.s. credibility is at stake. and that's the arctic. fortunately congress has begun to recognize this fact, and the bill that we just debated and passed on the floor today the ndaa, there is an important provision about the national security of the united states in the arctic, and it's now up to the administration and the department of defense to start to focus on this very important area of the united states, but also the world. mr. president, nobody spoke more eloquently and compellingly about peace through strength and about our country's credibility in the world than former president ronald reagan. president reagan's philosophy to win the cold war was simple. as he put it -- quote -- "we maintain the peace through our

strength. weakness only invites aggression ." and the important thing president reagan did he matched his rhetoric with credible actions. under president reagan, we strengthened our nato allies. stren thend our military and provided strong funding for the men and women who defended us. modernized our selfridge defense systems, countered potential soviet threats throughout the world. as a result of this credible policy that people and countries around the world believed, whether they were our allies or adversaries the efforts of the soviet union to build an empire based on aggression were thwarted and the soviet union itself ended up collapsing. well mr. president today the soviet union no longer exists,

but make no mistake the imperialist dreams of exphangs that dominated much of russian history since the days of the czars is still alive. today's russia again is a threat to its neighbor, threat to its neighbors and to the peace of the world. think about its unlawful military aggression in ukraine. but that's not all. there are other vital areas of the world in which russia is now taking new actions that should concern us. and one of these areas is the arctic. you don't hear much about the arctic in the mainstream media. that's largely because it's hard to get reporters and television cameras out to the arctic. but america is antarctic nation. we are antarctic nation because

of my state the great state of alaska. and there is much, much at stake in the arctic. new transportation routes huge, huge opportunities for energy. as a recent column in the "wall street journal" pointed out no wonder moscow has been racing to reopen old soviet bases on its territory across the arctic and develop new ones. the signs are everywhere, mr. president, that russia is making a new push into the arctic. let me provide a few examples. earlier this year the russian military held five days of arctic war exercises that included close to 40,000 troops, 50 surface-airships, 13 submarines 110 aircraft. the chairman of the joint chief of staffs, general dempsey said

recently the russians are increasing their military forces by six combat brigades, four of which will be stationed in the arctic. president putin has said he wants to build at least 13 new airfields, and they are starting, in the arctic. they are establishing a new arctic command several new ice breakers to add to their robust fleet. and in the paper just today there was another report of the russians planning yet another large-scale exercise in the arctic involving two arctic brigades. mr. president, just last week csis in a study called "america and the arctic" talked about what the russians are doing. the article said "recent actions taken by russia do not instill confidence that the arctic will it be exempt in recent

geopolitical tensions. the kremlin continues to hold unannounced military exercises in the arctic which engage significant numbers of forces and simulate even the use of nuclear weapons. moscow's authorization of use of military force to protect russian interests in the arctic, the planned reopening of what they say is over 50 soviet air bases along the russian's arctic coastline russia's recently used art of command as well as the recent declaration and pronouncement by the deputy prime minister of arctic that the arctic is russia's mecca have all raised very serious concerns about what's going on in the arctic. mr. president, i want to put this in perspective with a map here. this shows the new push by the russians into the arctic.

it shows the new airfields the new bases where you look at the map here; red. different spots on this map of red are the new or existing russian bases and airfields in the arctic. blue the two the three blue spots is united states presence, small airfield, station in greenland and alaska, america's arctic. two combat brigades in the great state of alaska. our u.s. military commanders are starting to wake up to the fact that the red is clearly clearly expanding on this map and it's concerning them. even the secretary of defense ash carter said just two months ago -- quote -- "the arctic is going to be a major area of

importance to the united states both strategically and economically in the future. and it's fair to say we're late to the recognition of that fact." we're late. so what are we doing? the russians have arctic exercises, new airfields new arctic command four new arctic brigades according to to our own joint chief of staffs. what are we doing? the department of defense has a 13-page arctic strategy. that's it. 13 pages that's what the united states of america the greatest military force in the world right now as this is happening we have this. mr. president, i want to talk about credibility.

this is not credible. this is not credible. worse, much worse the department of defense is thinking about removing one or maybe two combat -- brigade combat teams from america's arctic. let me repeat that. as the russians are building up everywhere, we are looking at possibly removing the b.c.t.'s right here. these two blue dots. one or two gone. that's not credible. these are the only u.s. soldiers in the arctic. they're arctic tough soldiers, cold weather trained. this is the only arctic airborne brigade in the united states. this is the only airborne

brigade in the entire asia pacific right here, fort richardson alaska. these soldiers, thousands of them are capable well-trained, tough u.s. soldiers, and they are the only ones capable of protecting our country's interests in the arctic, as that part of the world becomes more and more an area that russia becomes interested in. so we have this 13 pages we've announced we are seriously contemplating removing these sources from the arctic. mr. president, let me just say vladimir putin must surely be smiling somewhere in moscow as he makes these moves and he

hears that the department of defense is thinking about removing our only arctic forces out of the arctic. this is not credible. we are not only showing a lack of credibility removing army troops from the arctic, removing them from alaska we'll show the world weakness, and as president reagan noted weakness is provocative. we can be assured of that. mr. president, this strategy defies logic. importantly, it also defies the direction of the united states senate in the ndaa that we just passed by large bipartisan numbers. as i mentioned at the outset, the bill that we just passed states that the department of

defense should increase troops in the asian pacific region, increase troops under the command of the pay-com commander which includes these troops right here. fortunately, as i said, mr. president, there are also provisions in the ndaa to start making sure that our country wakes up to the security interests we have in the arctic. the bill we just passed here on the floor provides an important first step toward ensuring that the arctic remains a peaceful and stable and prosperous place. the ndaa requires our military to lay out a specific strategy not just 13 pages. in the arctic region that protects our interests there. it requires the secretary of defense to update to the

congress on the u.s. military strategy in the arctic region and importantly requires a military operations plan for the protection of our security interests in this important region of the world. mr. president, it the department of defense, united states army, should not even contemplate moving one single soldier out of america's arctic until all of this has been completed. and they should look hard at this bill that we hope the president will not veto with regard to the direction of the congress on the importance of increasing u.s. military forces in the asia pacific to add credibility to our rebound strategy.

mr. president, that means keeping appropriate troop levels in appropriate places like the asia pacific like the arctic and like alaska as required by the bill that we just passed by an overwhelming majority. alaska is the northern anchor of the pacific rebalance. it is the gateway to the arctic. it is what makes america an arctic nation. it is our only arctic state and it probably is the single greatest repository of untapped energy resources that will power our nation's future. that is why the words of general billy mitchell the father of the united states air force, it is the most strategic place in the world. mr. president, we need a strong rebalance strategy that's

credible. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you mr. president. first, let me say before turning to the topic at hand, those of us from connecticut, especially those of us in and around sandy hook connecticut our hearts go out to the community in charleston the grief and tragedy that they're working and sifting through today. it's hard for anyone to imagine. all i can say is i hope that they will find, as we did in newtown, connecticut that internal strength over time comes from unlikely spots that friends arrive from far-off places. there is a community that is much bigger than one church or one city that is going to wrap its arms around the families and the friends of the victims

during this terrible time. mr. president, i was so glad to see senator stabenow down on the floor a week ago talking about a pretty simple issue, which is the tax increase that is going to occur to 6.4 million americans if the supreme court rules this week, next week for the plaintiffs in the case of king v. burwell. so we wanted to come down to the floor and accent wait this message so people all across the country know what is at stake here. what is at stake here is 6.5 million people losing their health insurance that maybe gets the headlines but the way in which people get affordable health insurance under the affordable care act is by tax credits. and so the immediate effect of a reversal of subsidies for federal exchange states is that 6 six and a half million americans are going to have

their taxes dramatically increased by thousands of dollars if this body refuses to act in the face of a supreme court finding for the plaintiffs. and so we wanted to come down to the floor today just to talk a little bit about what the stakes are here for people's tax bills and how this is going to be a gut punch for millions of american families if the supreme court rules the way that we hope they don't. i think it's important to say at the outset that most of us that have followed the affordable care act and its legal interpretation think that this is a sham of a case. this is the political attack on the affordable care act masked as a legal case. there is absolutely no question that the affordable care act was built in a way to deliver subsidies to both state exchanges and federal exchanges.

i won't go into all of the details as to why that's the clear case, but although we're talking about what might happen if king v. burwell comes down for the plaintiffs, many of us think that that would be an absolutely ludicrous legal result one that would be a stunning act of judicial overreach. essentially the political substitution of the court for the legislature. but i want to talk just about a couple case studies here and then turn the floor over to my colleagues. i've come down and talked about people from connecticut. i talked about christina a small business owner from stratford, or suzy, a two-time breast cancer survivor from north canaan, connecticut or sean or emily. all these people have gotten tax credits through the affordable care act and it's allowed them to have a lower tax bill but also get insurance. many of them, it was the first time in their life or in recent history that they have been able to afford insurance. but there are stories all over

the country that are parallel to the stories that i have been telling on the floor of this senate over the course of the last year from connecticut. for instance, there are 832,000 texans who are receiving an average tax credit of $247 a month. if the supreme court strips away these tax credits those 800,000 people in texas are going to see a tax increase of around $3,000. people like aurora who is a 26-year-old from houston. she got health insurance coverage through texas' federal marketplace. she works at a small nonprofit where she helps her lgbt peers find the coverage that they need. she is saving $1,500 a year, getting insurance that she would have never been able to afford. she says, quite simply, i wouldn't have been able to afford my policy otherwise.

it's really helped me be able to get my well person exam and other preventative screenings that i haven't had in years. she is one of 832,000 people in texas who are going to have their taxes increased their insurance stolen away. now, i'm a big new york giants fan, and so i get to watch a lot of games in which the giants are playing in this stadium which is as cowboy fans know it, at&t stadium. you could fill at&t stadium ten different times -- this is a huge stadium. people have seen the giant jumbotron on the roof of this stadium. you could fill at&t stadium ten times with the number of people in texas alone that could lose their health care and lose their tax cut, $3,000 on average per person a year in texas if king

v. burwell is decided in favor of the plaintiffs. but i'll tell you another story of a young woman named celia. she is a self-employed pilates instructor in florida. since 2005, she hasn't been able to find health care coverage. since 2005, she has been uninsured. she has been lucky because she didn't get really sick during that time, but she only had a $900 a month plan that she could find. that was the cheapest. with the affordable care act celia finally has insurance. celia is able to finally sign up for a health insurance plan that has meant something to her because last year she had a minor accident in her home. she had to go to the emergency room and with her insurance she received a bill of $57. she says -- quote -- i couldn't have even imagined what that would have cost me out of pocket more than i could have ever afforded. this year, celia has re-enrolled

in another silver plan, and for around $200 a month she knows that she is going to be covered if she gets sick or if she has another minor accident. in florida you think -- you think this is a lot of people. 832,000 people. in florida, there are 1.3 million people who are receiving health care tax credits right now. now, i root for the university of connecticut huskies and so we don't necessarily get to play in stadiums this big when you're playing out of the american athletic conference, but everybody in florida knows the swamp, and you could fill the swamp 15 times over with the 1.3 million people that could lose their health care tax credit. that's more people than a -- than ten gator football games on an annual basis. that's more people than attend gator football games over a

two-year period of time. 1.3 million people are going to lose their coverage in florida alone. and so let's call a spade a spade. this is about health care. it's about our belief that -- for people that are working hard and playing by the rules that they should have a shot at being healthy, but it's also about keeping people's tax bills low. if -- if we ever contemplated a bill on the floor of the united states senate that raised 1.3 million people's taxes in florida by an average of 357b hundred dollars my friends from the republican side of the aisle, our friends would be screaming bloody murder that this was an unjustifiable unconscionable unworkable tax increase on the american people. but there is largely silence or temporary fixes and patches that are proposed. and so i'm glad to join my colleagues here today to talk about what this means.

now, i'm from connecticut and we have a state exchange, and so the conventional wisdom is that those of us who have state exchanges are going to be protected because we'll continue to get subsidies but this is going to be a death spiral nationally. we have no idea how this will actually play out. when you have all these subsidies ripped away with the insurance reforms still baked in even in states like connecticut where you have a state exchange, we're not immune nobody is immune, the primary victims here are going to be the people in states like florida and texas as i mentioned. but this is going to be a national catastrophe. we hope we don't ever to have a conversation on the floor of the senate how to fix this but which we better be clear what implications are. with that i'll be glad to yield the floor and i know my colleague will seek recognition. a senator: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. i want to thank my friend from connecticut not only for those very powerful words but for his ongoing advocacy and leadership in the whole realm of health care and the importance of something as basic as being able to take the kids to the doctor, make sure that you have the health care and affordable health insurance that you need. so i want to thank senator murphy and i want to thank senator baldwin as well, my partner and neighbor from wisconsin, and both of them senator baldwin also a champion as it relates to quality affordable health care for every american and both of them are very important voices and leaders on what we call the help committee, the health committee, and i am their partner on the other committee that does the financing of health care, which is, in fact the finance committee. so as the ranking democrat, the

lead democrat on the help subcommittee and someone deeply involved in the finance committee, as we were putting together the affordable care act i think it's appropriate for me to be able to talk about legislative intent. and that's what i want to do for a moment. because we knew that in putting together a way for everyone to be able to purchase affordable health insurance and indicate that the expectation that we would that it had to be affordable and i worked very hard to make sure that we had a tax credit system that would essentially lower people's taxes so they could take those funds and be able to use those to be able to afford health insurance and at the time senator baucus, the chairman of the committee would razz me and call senator affordability in all the meetings. so we spent a lot of times focusing on how can we make sure health insurance is affordable. and what's happening as senator

murphy said is that if the supreme court sides with the republican position, 6.4 million americans are going to see tax credits go away and their taxes go up. and the worst part is their taxes are going to go up and their health care is going to go down. not a good deal for anybody. and, unfortunately one of those sedates is my state of michigan. but let me talk a little bit more first about the broad picture because we're looking at $1.7 billion in tax increases to people all over america if the supreme court sides with the republican position. and basically somehow we would have to say it's rational that members from all of these states actually voted for a system that didn't help their own people.

which makes absolutely no sense. i can't believe anybody would do that. people wouldn't do that. basically we're saying that members of congress said that people in massachusetts where there's a state exchange can have a tax cut but if you live in oklahoma you can't. or that if you live in the district of columbia, right here, you can have a tax cut but if you live in louisiana you can't. or if you live in new york, you can have a tax cut but if you live in texas you can't. and we can go right around looking at some of the numbers and i won't go through all the charts i did last week and i'm very grateful for senator murphy pointing out two very important states. let me just talk about my state of michigan. again now i happen to be a big baseball fan and i'm a big detroit tigers fan. and when we look at comerica park and detroit it's a beautiful stadium, mr. president, we welcome you to come and look at a game and

get our folks engaged in what they do best in winning games and the fact of the matter is that you'd have to fill up comerica he a -- comerica park five times that's what it would to take to get the number of people who will lose their tax cuts if the supreme court sides with the republican position. 228,388 people. just a couple of other states. illinois 232,371 people will see their taxes go up. new jersey, 172 plus will see -- 172,000 plus will see their taxes go up. ohio another state right down from the great state of michigan 161,011 people will see their taxes go up. and finally pennsylvania, 348,823 people. so when we look at all this, all the states together,

6.4 million people are going to see tax increases. it makes no sense that people that represent these states would have voted for a system that raises taxes on their people that doesn't give them the health care that they need while other people in fact see lower taxes, tax credits that allow them to pay for their health care and that they get affordable health care. it makes absolutely no accepts. and, mr. president let me also say when we look at the chairman of the finance committee the former distinguished chairman, senator max baucus from montana, all the time we were debating the affordable care act it was clear that montana had absolutely no plan to set up their own exchange. they indicated that. so in order for the court to side with republicans, we would have to somehow believe that

senator baucus would write a health care bill with tax cuts for other states and not his own state of montana. which i can assure you he did not do. and the same can be said for myself. so the legislative intent is absolutely clear on this. and what the court is deciding in my opinion is something that i can't believe they're even bringing in front of the united states supreme court because on the face of it it makes no sense. unfortunately, depending on how they rule, millions of americans, millions of americans will see their taxes go up and their health care go away. the intent is very real. it's very clear in the affordable care act. title 1 page 1 quality affordable health care for all

americans. what was true five years ago when we wrote this bill is true today. the right to get the tax cuts has nothing to do with the state in which you live. if you're an american, then you deserve the opportunity to receive tax cuts that will make your health care affordable, whether you get your plan on an exchange run by the state or through healthcare.gov. this is about moms and dads in michigan and across the country being able to go to bed at night without having to say a prayer that says please, god don't let the kids get sick because what am i going to do? the affordable care act has provided an answer and the peace of mind for millions of americans. and we certainly hope that the supreme court will not take that

away. i'd now like to yield the floor to the great senator from wisconsin. ms. baldwin: thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. ms. baldwin: thank you mr. president. and, mr. president before i begin my focus on the affordable care act, i wanted to simply state that my heart goes out to the victims of last night's shooting in charleston, south carolina. as they participated in a prayer service at emanuel a.m.e. church the victims and their families and the entire community are in my thoughts and prayers in the wake of this unspeakable hate crime. mr. president, my colleagues and i gather here on the floor

today to share some good news, something we, unfortunately don't get to hear quite enough on the senate floor. i'm here today with senators murphy and stabenow to talk about how the affordable care act is working to strengthen and improve the economic security and the health security of our families all across the united states. before the affordable care act over 50 million americans were uninsured. and seniors paid higher out-of-pocket costs for their prescription drugs. insurance companies wrote their own rules and jacked up premiums they denied coverage to people with preexisting health conditions and in too many cases they dropped your coverage because you got sick, got older, or had a baby.

making the affordable care act the law of the land marked a critical turning point that was essential to stopping these predatory practices and to giving our families the quality affordable health care that they deserve and that they need. and now the story has changed. mr. president, as my colleagues have noted we have seen an historic reduction in the number of uninsured since congress passed the affordable care act in 2010. thanks to the law over 16 million previously uninsured americans have received health coverage. this year more than ten million individuals have an affordable quality health plan through the law's new health care marketplaces, and nearly 8.7 million people are benefiting from the health insurance cost assistance

provided under the new law. now, i want to make it clear that the law's important benefits are making a real difference in my home state of wisconsin. in wisconsin over 180,000 people have a quality health insurance plan -- insurance plan through with your federally still indicated marketplace. and in more than 90% of these wisconsinites are receiving support to make their coverage more affordable. more importantly the insurance companies don't get to make their own rules anymore. because of the affordable care act, insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to the more than two million wisconsinites who have some type of preexisting health condition. insurance companies can no longer co-pays or deductibles for critical preventable

services like contraception or cancer screenings for over one million wisconsin women. and thank thanks to the new law, 89,000 wisconsin seniors on medicare will see their prescription drug doughnut hole closed by 2020 -- or 2022. these same seniors on average have same $913 each on prescription drugs mr. president, i could continue on to share more numbers that prove that the a.c.a. is working for our families in wisconsin and in states across the country. but the real proof the real story is about the faces and the people behind these numbers. it's about real people, real wisconsinites who are realizing the benefits of this law every day. wisconsinites like doug from

colgate, wisconsin. at age 62, doug was worried about becoming uninsured. he and his wife had been insured through her employer, but she was about to apply for medicare. fortunately doug was able to find an affordable health plan on the affordable care act marketplace and he did not have to lie awake at night worrying about being denied coverage due to his recent heart surgery or another preexisting condition. real wisconsinites like kim of west alice. kim runs a small costume shop. she lost medicaid coverage when her son turned 18 years old. she went without medical care because she couldn't afford it, even though kim's doctor had found an indication of cancer during a hysterectomy.

then she signed up for the affordable coverage on the affordable care act's marketplace that cost only $79 a month. that's with premium tax credits. and when she renewed her coverage this year, her premium dropped to $20 a month. without this coverage and the premium tax credit, she wouldn't be able to afford the extra checkups that she needed to keep track of the possibility of the cancer emerging. real wisconsinites like joe alisa. she's a community health worker. joalisa lost her health insurance when she switched jobs but was able to quickly find a new plan through the a.c.a. marketplace. the plan cost only $87 per month with premium tax credits a tremendous savings from her $500

monthly premiums through her previous job. joalisa's health care coverage helps her manage several chronic conditions including a metabolic syndrome that carries a high risk of progressing to diabetes. and it also helps her make sure that her daughter gets immunizations and stays as healthy as possible. now, mr. president, one part of this story has not changed and that part is that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want the affordable care act to work. in fact, they continue to root for its failure. they don't want you to know about joalisa's lower health insurance premiums or about kim's affordable plan that's helping her prevent cancer. but what they do want is, regrettably crystal clear. they want to repeal the law and

turn back the clock to the days when only the healthy and wealthy could afford the luxury of quality health insurance. since its passage republicans have spent countless days trying to repeal the affordable care act by any and all means. they have tried to repeal the law in congress by voting over 50 times -- that's 5-0 -- 50 times to repeal all or parts of the affordable care act. and they've also tried to repeal the law by advancing politically motivated lawsuits including the most recent one that would rob millions of americans of health insurance, health insurance that they have today. in wisconsin alone this would mean that over 160,000

hardworking americans would see their taxes increase if they were stripped of their health insurance subsidies. that's enough to fill historic lambeau field twice. sometimes it's one thing to say the numbers. it's another thing to imagine the number of wisconsinites that that affects. mr. president, it's not only wisconsin families that would be impacted by this devastation but also families in our neighboring states neighboring states with federal exchanges like michigan illinois and iowa. the republicans have tried to say that they have an answer but their answer is really nothing more than another tired attempt to dismantle and repeal the affordable care act. one of these proposals is put

forward by a republican colleague from my home state of wisconsin would eliminate the health insurance subsidies in all states, including the federally facilitated and the state-run marketplaces. his proposal would rob over 166,000 wisconsin constituents of their premium support. his plan would attack the health care security of kim and joalisa and according to the american academy of actuaries it would expand the ranks of the uninsured and raise premiums. and naturally this proposal would hand over the reins to the insurance companies and allow them the freedom to take us back to the days that they offered bare-bone plans without essential health care coverage. in wisconsin this means going

back to the days when there were none -- no, zip zero -- individual health plans in the entire state that offered maternity coverage for families. you know, we cannot go back, we must not go back and we will not go back. mr. president, we know that the affordable care act is providing access affordability and quality in the state of wisconsin. we also know that in the united states of america, health care should be a right guaranteed to all and not just a privilege reserved for the few. that is what we have fought far and that's what we're going to continue to fight for as we move the affordable care act forward. i want to once again thank my colleagues senator stabenow, senator murphy for joining me

on the floor this afternoon. we have a case that's about to be decided by the united states supreme court. we have effort after effort in the congress of the united states to repeal or defund all or part of the affordable care act. but it is providing lifesaving coverage and good news to wisconsin ites and people across america -- wisconsinites and people across america. mr. president, i yield back my time.

ms. baldwin: mr. president, i note the absence of the quorum. the presiding officer: thank you. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president, i would ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. so ordered. mr. sessions: and i ask to speak as if in morning business for up to one hour. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president i thank the chair and believe that we're moving into a very important debate. in the next week, as the senate moves forward with legislation

passed by the house of representatives today that would advance trade promotion authority. trade promotion authority saddle gaition by the united states congress to the president of the united states chief executive powers that congress has authorizing and directing that the president go forward to negotiate a trade agreement. this trade agreement would then be brought back to the congress, and through legislation would be implemented. but the trade agreement would never be subject to full evaluation full debate under the normal processes of congress nor be subject to any amendment. indeed, if the trade promotion authority passes the senate maybe next week, then it would be this legislation or this

trade agreement would be fast tracked. that's why they call it a fast-track agreement. fast-track would mean that the treaty or they call it agreement to avoid the fact that a treaty requires a two-thirds vote that this trade agreement would be brought up to the congress. it would be on the floor for 20 hours. it would be subject to no amendment, and it would be voted on up or down. it would be filed, for example on a 4:00 on a monday afternoon and voted on final passage the next day at noon. that's the kind of situation we're facing. fast track has been used for a number of years a number of times, but it's always been focused on trade. what the tariff rates might be between trading partners, details of trade agreements and

definitions and that kind of thing. but this agreement is far more extensive. it's more extensive in the side and the scope of the trade agreement, the number of nations and the fact that it would cover, if the atlantic agreement is approved also, 75% of the world's economy. but even more significant to me is the that it creates something that's a nontrading entity a commission, a trans-pacific international commission. and this commission will meet regularly. it will be created by legislation with certain rules. but according to the trade representative who's negotiating and advancing this legislation on behalf of president obama and

is advocating for it, it will be a living agreement. and that means that the entity itself the commission will then be entitled to make it say different things. eliminate provisions it doesn't like add provisions it does like. in fact, the commission is required to meet regularly and to hear advice for changes from outside groups, from inside committees of the commission so that they can update the situation to change circumstances. it is a breathtaking event. it says it's designed to promote the international movement of people services and products. basically the same language used to start the european union. in fact, i have referred to it as a nascent european union. i don't think that's far off

base. so we'll have 12 pacific nations come together in this agreement. well the trade agreement, i would suggest colleagues, is not that big a deal, or part of it. we have basically free trade agreements with big nations like canada australia mexico, chile it negotiates really has impacts with two nations of significance: japan and vietnam. why we can't negotiate those trade agreements with them in a bilateral fashion, i don't know. why do we have to create a transnational union an institution that has the power as i will explain to impact the laws of the united states of america. it's not necessary. i voted for and worked as well

as we were told it would work, but i voted for the last agreement with bilateral agreement with south korea. south korea like japan are good friends around the world. we don't have any fundamental disagreements with them. they're part of the civilized world and so forth but they have a different view of trade than we do. they're mercantilists and they have to be approached and considered in a different way. they approach trade differently. they mean manufacturing and exports means power. actually a study has shown not too long ago that that has enhanced their powers, and nations with trading deficits like the united states have had their power diminished as their trade deficits have accrued. so some of our colleagues reject

mercantileism, and it is not healthy to trade for sure. we'd like to see it go away, but it is our trading partners' policies, and we have to deal with that reality when we negotiate agreements. what i would say colleagues, that this is a significant event. and i see no reason that when we are attempting to create a trade agreement, it can't be like south korea in 2012. we have to create an entirely new transnational union with powers where each nation has one vote s. sultan of brunei. sultan of brew -- brunei gets one vote. the president of the united states gets one vote. it appears from my reading of

the document it is difficult to understand what they mean. i would say at the most fundamental level this congress should not fast-track any transnational union of which we are a part until we understand every word in it, we know exactly what it means and the president can answer. and i've asked i've asked him what it means this living agreement language, in a letter. no answer. i asked the president of the united states do you contend this agreement will reduce the big trade deficit we have, or will it increase the trade deficit? they don't answer. the only thing that advocates for this treaty say is that it will advance or enhance employment in the exporting

industries. that's the only statement they made. why are they being careful about that? i've listened to them. no one has ever said much more than that. well in 2011 the president of the united states asserted, when he was doing the promoting the trade agreement with south korea, this was his statement. "we don't simply want to be an economy that consumes other countries' goods. we want to be building and exporting the goods that create jobs here in america." well, i agree with that. i think we do need to focus on that we have a sustained trade deficit, a sustained decline in manufacturing and we've seen the way americans and middle class declined for over a decade,

since 2000, not had decreases in wages but a decline in wages. part of that is a decline in manufacturing, which is where higher wages are paid. so this is what the president said with regard to the korean trade agreement. he said in his announcement back in 2011, "i'm interested in agreements that increase jobs and exports for the american people." well, i am too. well what do we know about the korean trade agreement? did it work? president obama said this at that announcement. i hate to recall what he said, but this is what the promise was when he made this announcement.

in short the tariff -- this is the president's statement that he personally delivered. "in short the tariff reductions in this agreement alone are expected to boost annual exports of american goods by up to $11 billion." annual exports would be increased by $11 billion. this would advance my goal of doubling u.s. exports over the next five years. so what happened after the trade agreement was signed? we've had less than $1 billion in three years in exports increases to south korea and they have had a $12 billion

increase in imports to the united states doubling virtually the trade deficit that was already large between our countries. this is a chart that just shows how that worked. this black line is when the treaty was signed. this is our deficits that we've been running. this is zero. these are the deficits we've been running. and then when the treaty was signed, the agreement was signed we've got a continuous decline in exports. i wish it weren't so. i voted for it. i bought the free trade and drank the free trade kool aid. but did it work? i have to say it hasn't worked yet. the reason mr. clyde prestowitz who was trade negotiator for president reagan with the pacific and with japan in the 1980's say they have nontariff

barriers. they have a mercantileist philosophy. this philosophy is to buy the least possible from abroad, make everything they can possibly make at home and export as much as possible, creating jobs in their country creating surpluses in trade creating wealth, they believe and ultimately creating power. so i just am concerned about this. i would just contend that we don't need to be listening to polly annish promise that these trade agreements are going to be so great for working americans. they haven't been doing so well, in my opinion. in fact, mr. prestowitz, i just mentioned, he's written a book on trade. in january of this year wrote an op-ed for "the los angeles times" in which he said this: "instead of forecasts, instead of saying we're going to have a $10 billion increase annually in

exports let's look at the facts -- quote -- "over the last 35 years the united states has brought china into the world trade organization and concluded many free trade agreements, including one with south korea three years ago in advance of each u.s. leaders promised the deals would create high-paying jobs reduce the trade deficit increase gross domestic product and raise living standards. but none of these came true. in fact, the u.s. nonoil trade deficit continued to grow. millions of jobs were offshore and mean household income has hardly risen since 2000. and exists overwhelmingly agree that a rising u.s. income inequality is being driven in part by international trade."

close quote. that's president reagan's trade advisor, a student of these issues who knows the pacific well who's written a book on trade, and documents contrary to what some people say that for the first 150 years of our country we had high tariffs on products import. i believe we should eliminate tariffs. i believe we should move to trade. and i've supported that over the years. but i just have to say i'm less convinced that in a world where our partners aren't operating on the same policies we operate on, we have to be careful about these agreements. what our trading partners want, in substance is access to the united states market, access so they can sell their products in the united states market, bring home wealth to their countries. that's their goal. it just is.

it's the way they approach life. we want access to their markets. there's nothing wrong with that. that's just what the world is about. and we're not negotiating very effectively. so many of these countries have nontariff barriers that cause difficult problems in trade and we reduce our tariff barriers and we have virtually no other barriers to sale the foreign products in the united states, while we are not able to export competitive products abroad because of their nontariff barriers or even sometimes their tariff barriers. i just want to say that to the beginning. i am not of the view that we have to have a trade agreement passed this week. and as part of it that we have to pass on union with 12 countries, each having one vote.

i don't see that that's got to be done, and if we don't sign a trade agreement that affects japan or vietnam today is the world going to collapse? we have been getting along without it for decades maybe since the history of the republic. so i'd say let's slow down, and i say we've got to focus more effectively on where -- what's good for america. so fast-track is a decision by congress to suspend several of its most basic powers for six years, and any treaty that's created in the next six years can take advantage of fast-track be brought directly to the floor and be passed on a simple majority in the house and the senate without an amendment. one of my republican colleagues said oh, we'll have a republican president, we can really put up

some good trade bills. who knows who is going to be elected president next year? who knows the president if he is a republican, will send up a good trade bill. congress has its due to respond and study trade agreements and casting knowledgeable vote on them and i don't think congress in this instance should give up its procedural processes for passing any important legislation. i think a decision of the magnitude we're dealing with deserves the most careful scrutiny. it's not just a trade agreement with one friend and ally, south korea. it's 12 nations in the pacific. as soon as that is inked, we have been told and brought forward for passage in the congress and historically if we give trade promotion authority the agreements have always passed that are presented.

once that is done, we will have a transatlantic agreement and this trans-atlantic agreement i suppose, also will have some sort of commission or trans-atlantic union with powers to discipline and set rules outside the powers of the united states congress. and then there is going to be a services agreement that's already been talked about. it's been leaked. somebody leaked it. the other two are secret and can't be seen by the american people. so this services agreement has ten pages on immigration. it's going to fast-track through changes in our immigration law. it's really a serious matter, and we have got other issues out there like environmental law that i will mention in a minute that absolutely the president tends to advance through this

trade agreement. so those are three major treaties and those treaties would impact 75% of the g.d.p. of america. but that's not all. for the next six years any other treaty can be advanced in this same way. presumably, three or four countries could get together and agree on some environmental regulation, and it could be advanced as some trade agreement in fast-track procedure through the congress. so i think the burden of proof rests on the promoters of fast-track to demonstrate why three-fifths of the senate shouldn't be required to agree since this is so akin to a treaty and/or advance this contrary to the laws of -- the procedures of congress.

some of my colleagues have been saying that the trade promotion authority that the president is so desperately seeking he has been hammering and bludgeoning his members in the senate and the house to get them to not vote their conscience but vote with what he wants they say we should pass it because it restricts the power of the president. give me a break. if this were true, why would the president want it? if he could do all this he wants to do without congress, why isn't he doing it anyway? the entire purpose of fast-track is for congress to surrender its power to the executive branch for six years. legislative concessions include control over the content of the legislation. the president negotiates it, he brings it back, we can't amend it. he controls the content of it.

the power to fully consider the legislation on the floor. it's filed on one day voted the next day. the power to keep debate open until senate cloture is invoked. on any other legislation, you have to get cloture vote. we couldn't get cloture on a defense bill today. the democrats refused to give 60 votes to pass the bill that appropriates the funds to defend america, but the president would be able to bring this bill up with a simple majority. and no ability for extended debate that the senate is famous for. and the constitutional requirement that treaties receive a two-thirds vote. when you're creating an international union i mean, this crosses the line. i think -- maybe someone can technically say that somehow this is an agreement and not a treaty. i don't know. lawyers could perhaps disagree,

but congress should assert its power. we should say mr. president we've seen you operate. we are not going to authorize you to enter into the creation of an international union where you get to impose additional powers on us, without creating it through the treaty process. and the legislation finally is not amendable, which is exceedingly unusual. so without fast-track, congress retains all its legislative powers individual members retain all their procedural tools, and every single line of trade text is publicly available before any action is taken to grease the skids for its final passage. i think that's important.

of what about this union -- what about this union? what kind of powers is it that we're talking about? i am of the belief that the president hasn't been a strong advocate of trade and his supporters, many of them oppose this kind of trade agreement. i am coming to believe that the primary part of his understanding of the importance of this legislation and why he's breaking arms and heads over it is the union this international commission that has powers that he believes will allow him to advance agendas. i don't say that conspiratorially. i will explain in a moment that that clearly seems to be one of the incentives that this president has to advance this

legislation. in a ways and means house document on the new pacific union being formed by president obama, the committee in the house hints at some of this union's power this international commission on trade union. quote -- "if a proposed change to a trade agreement is contemplated by the commission that would require a change in u.s. law all of t.p.a.'s congressional notification consultation and transparency requirements would apply. in other words the ways and means is intimating that this new secret pacific union would function like a third house of congress with legislative promise, the ability to advance legislation, sending changes to

the house and senate under fast-track procedures, receiving less procedure, for example than a post office reform. that's part of it. this legislative fast-track ways and means implies is limited to that which requires a change in u.s. law. meaning that if this president or the next argues it is simply an executive action, not a legal action, the executive would have a free hand to implement any agreement the commission creates without any approval of congress. you say he wouldn't do that. did you see where people who were lawfully in the country were given a photo i.d. card by the president of the united states was given a social security number and it says on the card work authorization.

when the law says you're in the country illegally you can't have a social security number. he did that. he made a recess appointment in blatant violation of the definition of what a recess is, and it took two or three years for the congress to take it to the supreme court in a unanimous 9-0 ruling, the supreme court overturned it. so to say the president will push his powers is naive indeed. and how do you stop? do you file a lawsuit? you say the president shouldn't have agreed to that in a specific commission. now the whole government bureaucracy is carrying out some global warming some trade issue that congress opposes. is a president capable of doing something like that, actually carrying out ideas and policies

that congress doesn't approve of? absolutely. we've seen it time and again. so this is not merely a loophole. it's a purposeful delegation of congressional authority to the executive and to an international body. we should understand what we are doing. not enough of our people have read this agreement and fully understand it. a fast-track-implementing legislation would have the ability to make these delegations binding as a matter of law it seems to me. some of you say well, maybe not i don't think it works that way. look, that's why i wrote the president and i said mr. president, make this part of the proposed t.p.p., the trans-pacific partnership public and let's have the lawyers study it. you explain to us exactly what these words mean, which he has

refused to do. and as a matter of fact, i don't think the american people have fully grasped that this is not a normal trade agreement but it's a creation of an international entity. amendments to specify that congress retains exclusive legislative authority and to actively prohibit foreign worker increases were blocked by the fast-track supporters. i offered legislation that would make clear that the president couldn't alter the constitutionally exclusive power of congress over immigration. and they refused to give us a vote. it's not in the bill. why not? i said well, we're not going to change immigration law some administration underlings say that. they don't have the power to bind the president. they're not lawyers perhaps. they don't know what the words mean. the president of the united states hasn't said it publicly.