add to a bill, they can do it simply by participating in the process and offering amendments. after all, isn't that what the senate's all about? we have to pass appropriation bills or the government is shut down, so why can't we even bring appropriation bills up for consideration? well, the answer's quite obvious. the democratic leadership is up to those old games that they use to keep the senator from debating appropriation bills that they did over the last five years. by blocking appropriation bills and threatening to blame us for the shutdown, they hope and believe that they can bully us into busting open the spending caps that a majority in both the house and senate agreed in the budget resolution earlier this

year. so much, then, for majority rule, which the democrats claim was such a deeply held principle as they expressed it only last year and years before that. they justify filibustering the appropriation bills because president obama has threatened to veto them unless he gets mor spending. now, that doesn't make any sense the first appropriation bill they filibustered was the defense appropriation bill. not because that bill didn't provide enough funding but because they want to hold it hostage to extract additional spending in other areas. now they are holding hostage the bill that funds the department of veterans affairs. so they are holding hostage

funding for our men and women in combat and our veterans who have served our nation in order to protect the president from having to follow through on his threat to veto these bills. now, i understand that the president might not want to have to defend vetoing funding for our troops and veterans as a bargaining chip to extract additional deficit spending from the congress, but protecting president -- protecting the president from having to follow through with his threat is not a very good reason for a filibuster. a similar thing happened with the filibuster of legislation to disprove the iran deal. a bipartisan majority in both the house and senate were in favor of legislation to block president obama's nuclear deal with iran. because the deal was set to go

into effect unless congress acted, the democrats cannot claim their filibuster was needed for additional deliberation. it was a blatant attempt to check -- to run out the clock so this president would not have to use his veto pen. so clearly it's not as though democrats have now grudgingly accepted the utility of the filibuster only in extraordinary circumstances. they have now embraced it so completely that they used it simply to prevent embarrassing the president. in light of this, it is understandable, then, that many of my political party and even in the grass-roots are questioning whether we ought to get rid of the filibuster on legislation. this is an expression of the frustration by a lot of conservatives that i hear in the

grass-roots of iowa, and you hear it in the other body as well. so the argument goes kind of like, after all, the democrats unilaterally abolished the filibuster on nominations, contrary to senate rules. well, they will have to live with that come 2017 when the republican president is inaugurated, as i hope. but just as i think they will live to regret that move, i think those of us on my side of the aisle would ultimately regret the loss of the senate as a deliberative body if we were to change the cloture rule for legislation. what would the democrats do with unchecked power? we don't have to guess. the democrats briefly had the 60 votes needed to overcome any filibuster and they promptly

rand an unpopular health care -- rammed an unpopular health care law down the throats of an unwilling american public. they dismissed legitimate criticism from republicans and skepticism from citizens of america. they promised that americans would like it once it had passed and we found out what's in it. well, americans now what was in it, the health care law, and the law hasn't become any more popular. so does that mean that we have to just accept that obamacare and other aspects of -- quote -- "the fundamentally transformation of america the president promised are here to stay?" of course not. but we must not be shortsighted and i think a lot of the people that are conservatives at the grass-roots of america that are frustrated, as a lot of us in this body are frustrated would

be shortsighted if they -- if they consider changing how the senate operates. keep in mind what the american left was greatly influenced by the progressive movement of the early 20th century, which held that history is continually progressing towards a future of more governmental control over people's lives for the people's benefit, of course. now, most of us don't buy that in the principle of limited government, but there are a lot of people today buying that. you hear it in the presidential campaigns, particularly of the other political party. so this led the early progressives of the early 20th century to reject the

declaration of independence and focus on individual liberty and to oppose our constitution's system of checks and balances designed to protect that liberty because it made it harder for the government to act. that comes from the philosophy that government always knows best. it also means that those on the left play the long game, sometimes bideing their time -- biegd -- biding their time, sometimes accepting incremental progress towards their goals, and other times making radical changes when they see an opening. those of us who are animated by the principle of individual liberty recognize that liberty is the exception in human history and threats to liberty must be fought constantly or we

risk losing liberty and freedom. as such, we're impatient to correct every loss of liberty right away as we should be. however, in doing so, we must be very careful not to break down those very safeguards that are in place to prevent government encroachment on individual liberty. if we're not careful, then, short-term gains could lead to even greater loss of liberty in the future. the president's former chief of staff was famous for saying something like this, and i think it's -- hopefully this is how -- i'm quoting him accurately. you never let a serious crisis go to waste, and what i mean by that, it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before. end of quote.

in other words, we've seen a concerted effort to take advantage of momentary passions and temporary majorities to enact long-standing policy goals of more governmental intervention in the economy and the intervention in the lives of americans. preventing such a power play is precisely the role that the senate was designed to play. just listen to this passage from "the federalist" number 62 -- quote -- "the necessity of a senate is not less indicated by the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions and to be seduced by factious leaders into

intemperate and pernicious resolutions." and, of course, that was written by james madison, rightly called the father of the constitution. madison prepared extensively for the constitutional convention by studying ancient republics and ancient and contemporary political philosophers. he came to the convention with what was called the virginia plan which the convention used as a starting point for what became the u.s. constitution. madison also took extensive notes throughout the constitutional convention. in other words, i think when he speaks about the intent behind the structure of the united states constitution, he ought to know better than anybody and that's particularly as he writes about the function of the senate

in our constitution system. it's true that madison did not speak to the filibuster itself and the constitution leaves the rules of the house and senate up to each chamber. but you cannot read "the federalist papers" without a clear understanding that our system of government was intended to allow only measures that have broad and enduring support to actually get into law the constitution was not designed to allow whatever faction happens to be in power to have a free hand to do whatever it wishes. as madison said in "federalist" number 10 -- quote -- "measures are too often decided not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party but by the superior

forces of interested and overbearing majority." and where that minority is protected is in the united states senate, the only place in our political system. in fact, in arguing for the necessity of the senate in "federalist paper" 63, madison is quite critical of pure majoritarian democracies in ancient times and attributes their failure to the lack of something we call the united states senate. that said, i understand why some of my republican colleagues in the house of representatives are frustrated with the fact that many of the things they pass become stalled here in the united states senate. and i say to them that a lot of us on this side of the aisle share that frustration.

so am i and we need to make sure those obstructing are held accountable. but anyone who would change the senate rules to give the majority leader the power to ram any bill through the senate on party-line vote should then ask whether they can trust that power -- that this power will be used fairly by future majority leaders. remember that the previous majority leader tried to shut the minority out of the legislative process at almost every stage. the senate was routinely presented with bills often written behind closed doors in the majority leader's office and told that there would be only an up-or-down vote with no

amendments. moreover, what would conservatives gain by abolishing the filibuster? i want people to think about what might happen if the filibuster is abolished. in the short term, we'd have the emotional satisfaction of seeing president obama use his veto pen but that's about it. in the long return, you can bet that modern-day progressives will use those tools to impose all sorts of policies to expand the scope of government that would otherwise not make it through our constitutional system. if you want to know what smr those intemperate and pernicious resolutions madison warned us about, what they might be, we need to only look to the past. so here i go to list a whole

bunch of things. that could be the law of the land today. had the senate operated on a purely majoritarian basis in the past, our country would be in much worse shap than it is now.k obamacare is bad, we would have had a single-pair government-run health care system if it weren't for the 60-vote requirement. we would have a disastrous cap-and-trade bill in 2008 with its crony giveaways making special interests rich while destroying jobs for hardworking americans. the list of items that would have passed the senate go on and on. 2007-immigration amnesty bill. the disclose act to intimidate private groups that engage in

political speech. that was brought up in 2010, the abolition of secret ballot elections for unions in 2007. the prohibition on businesses replacing striking employees. that was brought up in 1992. a bill to encourage public safety employees to unionize in 2010. the 1992 clinton crime bill -- drug price negotiations in medicare part-d would be law in 2007. an amendment to the constitution to cancel first amendment protections for speech around election time in 2014. stripping religious liberty protections from christian business owners who object to paying for drugs that cause an abortion in the year 2014. president obama's second big

spending stimulus proposal in 2011. the so-called buffett tax would have been passed several times by now. the tax increase to pay local government employees' salaries in 2011. and who knows how many other tax increases they would have passed if they knew they could get away with it? and, of course, you heard a few weeks ago a speech by senator alexander. he has argued one of the first things the democratic leadership would do is follow the orders of union bosses and outlaw the many right-to-work laws that we have in the united states. -- forcing association against will of some people. i know well what it is like in the majority. i know what i.t. lik it's like n the minority in the united

states senate. and i know things look very different from each perspective. i would ask my conservative colleagues who are frustrated that the current majority is not able to work its will to consider the example of history and look to the future. it is also interesting to observe the behavior of the many democrats who had never experienced the minority before who have now gained a new perspective on the filibuster and the power of the minority and the protection of the minority by supporting the filibuster every chance that they get. and it didn't take long. on the third vote in the senate this year, after the change of control, that is, most of the democrats -- including some of the loudest critics of the filibuster -- voted against

cloture on a motion to proceed, which until that point they claimed to be an egregious and inappropriate abuse of senate rules. i know that there are some senate democrats who still say they are opposed to the filibuster, even in principle, although apparently not in prosecute. -- not in practice. it's no good saying something like this -- stop me before i filibuster again. if you think it's wrong, don't do it. it's as simple as that. when senator wyden and i began to work on ending the practice of secret holds, we pledged to disclose any hold that we placed -- that we placed on a bill in the "congressional record" and we did that for years before we

finally got rules changed so that every member has to do that. the senate democrats have shown through their actions that they now fully support the senate filibuster. i guarantee that the next time republicans are in the minority, we, too, will see the necessity of this traditional protection against what madison referred to as -- quote -- "the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority." end of quote. i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, in the year of 1789 in the united states senate in a chamber not far from here the senate approved the first 10 amendments to the constitution. the second amendment reads,

"well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." the second amendment to the constitution, an amendment which has been honored and debated and litigated over the entire history of the united states. whatever the true intent of our founding fathers in writing that language, that brief sentence, i wonder if they could even imagine what we are dealing with today in the name of the right of people to keep and bear arms? because, you see, mr. president, every day on average in america 297 people are shot -- every day. 89 die every day in america.

last saturday i was with my wife in chicago having a cup of coffee and reading over the papers, listening to national public radio, and they reported the roseburg, oregon, shooting at the community college. and they cited a statistic that i was not aware of. that shooting at that community college that killed nine innocent people, that shooting was the 45th school shooting in america this year. 45 -- 45 shootings. in schools. there were many other mass shootings in different places, but now even schools, even students, even schoolchildren are not safe from the rampage of

guns. i'm honored to represent the city of chicago. it is great city. i do my best to help it in every way i can. but i also have to be very candid and honest with you. so far there have been 2,300 shootings in the city of chicago in year. where are all these guns coming from? yesterday morpg i wen morning ie bureau o alcohol and firearms. why do we have more guns per capita in chicago than in new york? why is it that so many of these teenagers and kids, mobs and gangs are armed to the teeth? where are all these guns coming from? you said, senator, the

number-one source of guns in the state of illinois -- crime guns that we've taken in the commission of crime and can trace -- the number-one source +s illinois. i will -- source is illinois. we have this phenomenon where people go into a federally lanced remains dealer and purchase guns and use them in crime. but the bigger problem is they send in someone without a criminal record who can pass a background check who buys guns and turns them over to drug gangs and thugs and criminals on the street. they call it gun trafficking. so the number-one source of guns is trading guns within the state of illinois and these traffickers, these straw purchasers who purchase a gun not for their own use but to turn it over to a criminal or to sell it to a criminal. that's the number-one source. what is the number-two state

supplying guns to the state of illinois? indiana. adjoining illinois to the east. specifically, lake county, indiana, in the northwestern section of the state. why do we get so many guns from indiana into illinois that are used in the commission of crime? because of gun shows. gun shows which occur on the weekends when people literally show up in indiana, show some state identification, and without any background check walk out with a gun. not just "a gun." many times they fill their trunks with guns and ammunition, drive across the border into chicago, cook county, go to the west side of town or down south in inglewood, pull up in an alley, maybe hurricane katrina

-- maybe even on a curbside. the people who purchase these never went through a background check. nine times out of ten, unless they are buying at a gun show from a federal dealer, it is just an arm's length transaction. you'd be disqualified if you went to a federal gun dealer for many of these people. they've history of committing felonies, other acts that disqualify them. the fact is, today that's the number-two source of guns: indiana. what's the number-three source of guns, crime guns, in the city of chicago? mississippi. mississippi! why? because their gun show requirements are even more lax than in the midwest. it is an ongoing commerce of

running those guns up the interstate, selling them into the city of chicago. so what's happening? there's a dramatic increase in homicides across america. we are awash with guns. sadly, many of them are in the hands of people who buy them to kill innocent people. there's been a spike in homicides this year, not just in chicago but in milwaukee, st. louis, houston, baltimore, new orleans, and many other cities. the plain reality is, we are now awash in guns in america, and it's far too easy for convicted criminals, felons, and unstable people to get their hands hon a gun and use it. when guns are everywhere and when it is easy for dangerous people to get them, it puts everyone at risk.

can you imagine for a second that any of those students heading into that community college in oregon that morning had even an idea that they faced -- they would face a gunman and some would die? a heartbreaking story. one i remember fleering a -- oni remember hearing from a minister whwho talked to his daughter, wo survived because she appeared to be a bloody corpse and the gunman stepped over her. that father could hardly contain his emotions when he talked about dropping that girl off at school and living with the possibility that she would have died there and that would have been his last memory of his daughter. is that what america has come to? is that what we are? pretty much anywhere you go now you have it in the back of your mind, someone can have a gun, someone can start shooting. do we want to live this way in america?

if you talked to the gun lobby and the special interest groups that manufacture the guns and want to sell more and more, they'll say the solution to arm more good guys with guns so they can shoot the bad guys. that's a solution they like because it sells more guns. but why wouldn't we try, in the first place, to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys? the supreme court has said there's no constitutional problem in the provision that i read with keeping guns away from felons, domestic violence abusers, the mentally unstable and other dangerous people. the supreme court across the street said that's completely consistent with the second amendment. why don't we do it? if our country did a better job of preventing bad guys from getting guns, there are a lot of innocent people who'd still be here today. i held a hearing in my constitution subcommittee a couple years ago on gun violence. we talked about the need for better laws to stop illegal

straw purchases in gun trafficking. one of our witnesses, a young woman who's become my friend, was sandra worthem of chicago. her brother was a chicago police officer, served two tours of duty in y he was gunned down in front of his parents' home on the south side of chicago. he was murdered by gang members with a straw purchase gun. he was an extraordinary police officer. and when he was shot, he had a gun on him. he shot back at the armed gunmen that were trying to rob him, and so did his father who was standing nearby, also a retired police sergeant. but officer worthham was killed. he died in front of his parents' house on may 19, 2010. i attended his funeral. thomas worthham's sister sandra spoke at that hearing. it was powerful.

this is what she said. "my brother carried a gun. my father carried a gun. but the fact that my brother and father were armed that night did not prevent my brother from being killed. we need to do more to keep guns out of the wrong hands in the first place. i don't think that makes us antigun. i think it makes us pro, decent, law-abiding people. sandra worthham was right. i hope my colleagues hear her words. some say they will just keep bad guys from getting guns. there are a lot of loopholes in the system today, like the gun show system and the background check. i don't question the loopholes are there. it's also true the gun lobby is working every day to further weaken the laws on the books that will strike them down in court. but we can stop the gun lobby from gutting the laws on the books and we can close those

loopholes if lawmakers just have the courage and political will. our goal should be to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys. not to take them away from people who use them in a responsible and legal way. i grew up in down state illinois. owning shotguns and rifles is just part of life, taking your son or in some cases even your daughter out hunting is normal. it's what people do. i have been out hunting myself, in arkansas, with my former colleague mark pryor. stuttgart, arkansas, duck hunting with him. we had a good time. and everybody there knew that that gun was a dangerous weapon that had to be handled carefully, filed the necessary permits, licenses to be out there and hunting on that day,

followed a long list of requirements that limited our right to go shooting ducks, migrating ducks in that area. we did it because it was the law, and law-abiding people pay attending to the law. but what are we going to do now to respect those law-abiding people but still get serious about stopping these guns that end up in the hands of felons and mentally unstable people. are we going to shrug our shoulders? are members of congress going to put out the standard press release after a mass shooting? are we going to rise to this challenge on this occasion and do something? what a breakthrough it would be if we could save these innocent lives. i cannot imagine in that classroom in the community college in oregon when that crazy gunman loaded and armed went up to each of those students and asked if they were christians, and if they said yes, he told them you're on your way to heaven and shot them dead. i can't imagine that moment.

i certainly can't imagine if in that classroom was someone i loved, someone i knew, someone i cared about, and they were the victims of that kind of mental instability. so are we going to shrug our shoulders, remember the victims in our thoughts and prayers and do nothing? is that what it's come to? we're better than that. we can easily pass laws to protect domestic violence victims by keeping the guns out of the hands of their abusers. all it takes is will. we can easily hold gun dealers accountable for guns that they purposely misplace into the hands of criminals. all it takes is the will. we can easily adopt technology to stop criminals from stealing guns, stop kids from using them accidentally. all it takes is will. we could easily create a better background check system and pass better laws to stop straw purchasing and illegal gun trafficking. all it takes is will. we can stop the gun lobby from

gutting the laws on the books and we can close these loopholes if lawmakers just have the courage and the political will. as president obama said, our thoughts and prayers are not enough. stopping this violence requires courage and political will. i hope the united states congress can rise to this challenge. i'm not giving up. i've seen too many lives cut short, too many families and communities devastated by this violence. i'm going to do all i can to bring down the number of shootings in america. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. durbin: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: i ask unanimous i ass consent the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 237, h.r. 34. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the measure. the clerk: calendar number 237, h.r. 34, an act to authorize and strengthen the tsunami detection forecast warning, research and mitigation program and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. a senator: i ask consent that the thune amendment at the desk be agreed to, that the committee-reported amendment as amended, be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, that the motion to rereconsider be crdz played and laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: i ask unanimous consent that the committee on homeland security be discharged from h.r. 3116 and the senate

proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 3116, an act to extend by 15 years the authority of the secretary of commerce to conduct the quarterly financial report program. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged from the measure and the senate will proceed. a senator: i ask unanimous consent that the sasse amendment be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, and the motion reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of senate con. res. 22. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the measure. the clerk: senate concurrent resolution 22, recognizing the 50th anniversary of the white house fellows program. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed. a senator: i ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection.

a senator: i clarify i also want the preamble agreed to. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 279 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the measure. the clerk: senate resolution 279, honoring the redland little league team of lewisberry, pennsylvania, for the performance. team in the 2015 little league world series. the presiding officer: without objection, it is senate will proceed. a senator: i ask unanimous

consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to s. res. 272. the presiding officer: without objection. -- excuse me, the clerk will report the measure. the clerk: senate resolution 272, congratulating the university of kansas for 150 years of outstanding service to the state of kansas, the united states, and the world. the presiding officer: without objection, the measure is discharged from committee and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. daines: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. daines: i understand that there is a bill at the desk and i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: s. 2146, a bill to hold sanctuary jurisdictions

accountable for defying federal law and so forth and for other purposes. mr. daines: i now ask for a second reading and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will receive its second reading on the next legislative day. mr. daines: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., wednesday october 7. following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. following leader remarks, the senate resume consideration of the conference report to accompany h.r. 1735, with the time until 1:00 p.m. equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, that the time from 1:00 to 1:30 be

controlled by democratic manager or his designee and that the time from 1:30 to 2:00 be controlled by the chairman or his designee. further that notwithstanding the provisions of rule 22, all postcloture time on the conference report to accompany h.r. 1735 be deemed expired at 2:00. the presiding officer: without objection. davens daines if thermr. daineso further business to come before the senate, i ask had a it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: without the presiding officer: without the measure would provide $604 billion for the pentagon and defense related agencies as well as 89 billion for overseas operations.

the house passed thehouse passed the measure last week, president obama has already issued a veto threat. earlier today several senators came to the four to discussfore to discuss a measure and why they were in favor or against it. we begin with armed services committee jack reed ranking member. >> a senator from rhode island. >> mr. president, i rise to discuss the conference report on the fiscal year 2013 national reauthorization bill. this is the product of months of negotiation and compromise we do the house of that it, and i frankly want to commend chairman mccain, thornberry, and ranking member smith for corporal, inclusive, and cordial process. there are many provisions of the funding authority,

equipment necessary necessaryauthority, equipment necessary for our troops to succeed and significant in critical reform from military systems. many of which i we will talk about in for the debate on this bill in the days and hours ahead. however, i regret i am unable to support this because it shifts $38 billion'ssequestered by the president for endearing base military requirements, the base budget, if you will too much of the overseas contingency operation essentially skirting the law known as the budget control act for bca. this is a maneuver to get around a statute which was signed by the pres.,president, voted for by congress, which has imposed budget caps on models, and center to that agreement was the consensus, significant consensus that domestic and defense discretionary spending would be. and what this does is violate that consensus by

using this in a way thata way that it was not originally intended to be so used. this budget gimmick allows the majority to fully fund the defense department without breaking those imposed. however, this account provides no relief for nondefense agencies to include many agencies that are critical to our national security. because of this device, i and nearly all the democratic conferees on the bill did not sign the conference report. using this is countering the intent of the budget control act. the bca imposed important legal cuts to force a bipartisan compromisea bipartisan compromise to our ongoing budget difficulties. emergency funding is outside budget caps were reason. they financed the course of ongoing military operations

or to respond to unforeseen events like natural disasters. to suddenly ignore the true purpose and treated at a -- treat it as a budgetary gambit is in my view and unacceptable use of this important tool for our war fighters in the field. adding funds does not solve and actually complicates the department of defense budgetary problems. the problems. defense budgeting needs to be based on long-term military strategy which requires the department of defense to focus at least five years in the future, one year plus does not provide dod with the certainty and stability needed. just a highlight how this approach excuse defense spending consider the amount of troops deployed. it is a useful metric. they evolved when we were

deploying troops overseas. there is a correlation between efforts overseas, troops engaged, and the size. in 2008 the height of our nation's troop commitment, approximately 187,000 total troops deployed, we spent approximately $1 million for every service member deployed to those countries. under this bill we would spend approximately $9 million for every service member deployed to iraq and afghanistan, roughly about 9,930 people. so this increased and has gone someplace. it has not gone overseas directly to the men and women who are fighting, but it has gone to other accounts.

in addition to this phenomenon, within the next few years the services will begin procuring new weapon systems will mark -- maintaining the systems. and the defense program the department will spend $48 billion$48 billion to picture the f3 five joint strike fighter. each of these programs is critically important to our national defense. we must ensure they are funded. it is likely tough budget choices will need to be made. as a result, if we decide to stay within the stringent budget caps we may be forced to fund these programs at the expense of the equally meritorious programs. not investing fully or using legacy systems that are

important to pay for them. alternatively and what i think is more likely, these programs will be funded. however, in order to ensure the budget caps are not breached funding will be shifted from the operations to the yoko account in order to accommodate the increased procurement for knew weapon systems. that is in many respects what is happening with this $38.3 billion shift in to the budget accounts for only requirements. what you have here is in a sense a budgetary sleight of hand. we have these increased demands coming to us because we have to recapitalize our strategic systems particularly, and if we have the bca caps in place, we have to find money someplace. and we will see a fund which was designed to support ongoing operations overseas

that will suddenly be the pay for long-term base budget items. recapitalization. and if we use this game this year may be with a good intentions and the honest intentions of just one year to get ahead, but it will be easy to do it next year and the year after year after that. as we all recognize, effective national security requires not dod department and agencies also received relief. the pentagon simply cannot meet the complex set of national security challenges without the help of other government departments and agencies including state, justice, and homeland security. undersecretary of defense policy christine made this point many americans believe

this to be the top national security threat facing our country. the department of defense is only one part of a whole whole government approach to defeating isi helped. it will take more than just a military campaign to be successful. we also need help to drive the finances. thefinances. the flows of foreign fighters into iraq in syria in particular provide humanitarian assistance. finallyassistance. finally and more effectively, counter the very successful measures and campaigns. unfortunately we will effectively diminish our national capabilities to do all these things byof these things by underfunding non- dod department and agencies that are critical to our national security. use of the gimmick, and it has been referred to as that by many people, facilitates

underfunding those departments and should not be supported.supported. we need an all-out governmental effort to provide for our national security. and underfunding state and treasury and other departments is not going to get us there.there. when it no longer becomes easy to undermine nondefense agencies, my suspicion is that nondefense programs will begin appearing. and there is some precedent to this. for example, and fy 92 congress added to the defense bill for breast cancer research. at the time discretionary spending was subject to of the budget enforcement act of 1990, the follow-on legislation to the act of 1985. to the act of

1985. the situation where you are in discretionary domestic spending but defense spending was uncapped, and this is a situation that we are, i think, re-creating in this report. that initial funding led to the establishment of the congressionally directed medical research program, and every senator, i think, is familiar with this important program, and it has strong bipartisan support and each fiscal year congress authorizes and appropriates hundreds of millions of dollars to the program for cutting-edge and clinically essential medical research. this program has received over $13 billion of funding. and while this program is funded for the annual defense bill and the program is managed by the army, the department does not execute any of the money itself. it is a competitive grant process that proposes are

stringent review criteria command essentially the money goes out to medical research facilities throughout the united states, for all intents and purposes a medical research program much like we fund through nih. and i am a strong supporter of medical research,research, strong supporter of the program, and indeed, this program has through its efforts saved countless lives, but my concern is that under the aegis of this act approaches like this club budgetary maneuvers like this will become common. it will be a way to skirt the budget. if we do it this year, we have set a precedent for next year in the following year. and ten and ten years from now the defense bill could authorize the reins of dollars in funding for programs that will have little or nothing to do with national defense and should be properly budgeted within our base budget for other departments and, indeed, some programs properly funded within the department

of defense base budget. budget. simply put, this approach would circumvent the budget control act and is not fiscally responsible or honest accounting. it is time we come together as a congress before the short-term continuing resolution expires to fulfill our responsibilities to the american people, especially our troops and their families to fully fund our government by revising or eliminating the budget caps imposed by the bca on both offense and nondefense spending. in fact, and indeed, if it were not for this issue i would have likely sign the report and have voted for this bill. however, i believe this issue is too important. the secretary of defense believes it to important. and the president said he believes it to important and said that he will veto this bill and any other that relies upon this gimmick. without a negotiated budget solution in which everyone comes together at last we

will, again, return to sequestration level funding, reducing discretionary funding to its lowest real level and one decade despite the fact that members of both parties agree that this result will harm national security. making these kinds of indiscriminate cuts is managerially and efficient and therefore wasteful to taxpayers and industry, dangerous to our strategy and, frankly, embarrassing in front of the world. these are the words of the secretary of defense echoing the comments we have heard from uniformed military leaders about the inherent dangers of sequestration, if it is allowed to continue forward. mr. pres., the bca was created to address the immediate threat of what would have been a catastrophic national default that would compel congress to come together and reach a balance compromised budget. is isbudget. it is time for congress to make hard choices and modify or limit the's ending the

threat of sequestration. it is not just an appropriations issue.issue. it is affecting everything that we do. unfortunately it affects the national defense authorization act and therefore i will not be prepared to support this legislation. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. >> mr. president. >> the senator from south

dakota. >> are we in a quorum call? >> we are not. >> democrats have spent a lot of time talking about the importance of keeping the government open.open. sinner republicans could not agree more. we know that congress has a responsibility to ensure our nation's priorities are funded and spent a lot of time working on that. we passed the 1st joint house-senate balanced budget resolution and more than a decade. by the end of july the senate appropriations committee approved all 12 appropriations bills for the 1st time since 2,009, the 1st time in six years the senate appropriations committee approved all 12 of the appropriation bills. but there is one problem, mr. pres., and that problem is for all there talk about providing for the government, apparently democrats are reluctant to take action when it comes to actually passing bills through the senate. republicans try to bring out the military construction and veterans affairs appropriations bill last

week. democrats refused to allow the senate to even consider it. we could not get on the bill. they blocked the motion to proceed. to even get on to debate that bill. that's right, mr. prs who spent weeks talking about funding the government refused to allow the senate to even debate a bill that would fund military construction can't protect our homeland, and keep keep the promises that we have made to our veterans. mr. pres., i might be able to understand democrats position if they had been shut out of the process of his legislation. but they were not. the military construction and veterans affairs appropriations bill was debated in the appropriations committee for members of both parties were given an opportunity to offer amendments and help shape the bills confidence.

the democrats and allow the filter rates of four and would have had another opportunity. the debate and amend the legislation. senate democrats would not even let the bill come to the floor to be debated. they blocked the motion to proceed to the bill that would even allow them an opportunity to be heard, an opportunity to offer amendments. some democrats have threatened to block the bill that we are currently considering this week which is the national defense authorization act which, again, is a bicameral agreement that authorizes funding for nation's military and national defense that ensures that our soldiers receive the bonuses. their equipment and training will be funded, and commanders will have the resources needed to confront the threat facing our nation.

they received bipartisan support coming of the committee. came to the floor, united states senate, received a big bipartisan vote, but now some of the very same democrats who supported this bill a little more than three months ago are planning to vote against it. on top of that pres. president obama has threatened to veto this bill when it comes to his desk. why are democrats opposing a bill that would authorize the funding that our troops need to operate?

historically,historically, the national defense authorization act has received strong bipartisan support. historically both democrats and republicans have known the great responsibility that we have to the men and women who keep us safe and we have made a habit of working together to try to take the responsibility so why are things different this year basically mr. pres., democrats have decided since they can't get everything they want they will take there ball and go home. republicans and democrats are considering this, but we had hoped after months of successful collaboration they would rethink their strategy. as i said them all 12 appropriations bills reported out of senate appropriations committee with bipartisan majorities

amendments offered in amendments voted on. but unfortunately this past week it has become clear that senate democrats and the president are committed to following through on their plans to obstruct these bills. their argument is, if they want more money for this or that and we're not going to fund the military until we get more money for whatever there domestic priority is, whether it is more funding for the epa or irs or some other agency of government, that is what this is about. it is somewhat staggering to think that some senate democrats would think of blocking the national defense authorization act after supporting this bill in june. it's pretty hard to explain why you think a bill is good one day and not the next.

and let's just remind ourselves what it is that they are voting to block and with the president is threatening to veto. the national defense authorization act authorizes funding for our nation's military international defense from equipment and training for our soldiers to critical national security priorities like supporting our allies against russian aggression overseas. in my state of south dakota we are proud to host the 28th bomb wing at ellsworth air force base, one of the nations two b-1 bomber bases. the b-1s are a critical part of the united states bomber fleet. bombers have played a key role in armed conflicts that the united states has engaged in over the past 20 years. during operation odyssey dawn b-1s launched from south dakota, flew halfway around the world to libya, drop their bombs and returned home all in a single mission. this marks the 1st time in

history the b-1 launched from the united states has tracked targets overseas. the funding levels needed to maintain these bombers will be authorized. it is that simple. and that is what is at stake with this bill. the president chooses to veto this legislation, he is vetoing the bill that authorizes funding that our military needs to operate and also vetoing authorization for the weapons,weapons, vehicles, and planes that our military needs to defend our country against future threats such as the long-range strike bomber and also represents the future of our bomber fleet. by vetoingfleet. by vetoing this bill the president would also be vetoing a number of critical reforms that will expand the

resources available to our military men and women to strengthen national security. this year's national defense authorization act tackles waste and inefficiency of the departmentdepartment of defense, 10 billion and unnecessary spending and redirects funds to military priorities like funding for aircraft and weapon systems and modernization of navy vessels. the bill also implement sweeping reforms to military's outdated acquisition process by removing bureaucracy and expediting decision-making which will significantly improve the military's ability tomilitary's ability to access the technology and equipment that it needs. the act also implements a number of reforms to the pentagon administrative functions. army headquarters staff is increased by 16 percent and in recent years the army has been cutting brigade combat teams. from 2001 to 2012 the department of defense and civilian workforce grew at five times the rate of our active-duty military personnel.

the defense authorization bill that we are considering changes the emphasis of the department of defense from the administration's operations which will help ensure our military personnel receive the training they need and are ready to meet any threats that arise. this bill also overhauls and does not apply to 85 percent of those who have served. the national defense authorization act replaces the system with a modern retirement system that would extend benefits to 75 percent of our service members. no time is a good time. the decision.

it and thanks to the presence nuclear deal they iran will soon have access to increased funds and the ability to purchase more conventional problems. that's right, pres. obama is threatening to veto a bill and has agreed to a bill that gives a ran access to over $100 billion to fund terrorism any iranian revolutionary guard. that same deal waves the sanctions on leaders including the general who is responsible for the death of soldiers in iraq. improve military retirement benefits for soldiers at home. the president still gives has blind thomas more funding for terrorism.

missile-defense systems for our allies, including israel. right now president obama is threatening to veto funding for our advanced weapon systems for us military forces the conventional weapons, ballistic missiles, advanced nuclear centrifuges. now above all in the wake of this flawed iran deal and growing chaos the middle east holding up funding the blocking this authorization bill is unacceptable. posted a democrats and the president may have decided to pursue a strategy of obstruction, it is not too late for them to change their mind.

join republicans in supporting this critical bill. >> the assistant democratic leader. >> five minutes. >> thank the chair. the issue before us is the conference committee report on the house defense authorization bill, not the spending bill but the authorizing of spending, bill that largely is bipartisan, no argument on either side to support our troops, no argument against providing the technology and weaponry that they need to keep themselves and america safe, but the issue before us is a largera larger budget issue that goes even beyond the department of defense but certainly includes it, how are we going to fund our government? the republican approach is to put in 37 to $38 billion of made of money. .. and put it in the budget

for the department of defense only. but they don't put money in for nondefense agencies, so they adequately fund the department of defense. in fact, some say generously fund it, and then cut back on the rest of government. what's the difference? what difference does it make? well, the cutbacks include on the nondefense side medical research at the national institutes of health. the cuts include adequate resources for the veterans administration to keep our promise to the men and women who served us in the military. the cuts include keeping america safe when it comes to homeland security and the f.b.i. so they make cuts in all of thighs agencies but provide the funding for tepartmen defense. >> >> way want to give our

troops the best treatment that we don't want touche or ren change the non-defense side the that is what the budgetth sidesa negotiations are all about both sides care about the military but there're other parts of our government that are as important as well fore a the safety and future of the united states and that not acknowledges that reality. how many think we are suffering is not enough and dense? f if you follow legislation on m capitol hill but the lobby reprs to expand so the congressmen

for alabama proposed theliber military sell 45 caliberposal it handguns without any background checks from the backd purchasers. that is a proposal in the house.ks with the semiautomatic the handguns without any background checks do they really do that? io that is limited fromheck. 100,000 don't at 10,000 the handguns that they have to n go through dealer to be a itckground check the answer w in the news everyday to with a divided are hurt every

day. the i was stunned to hear thathe what happened in oregon was havo the 45th school shooting about in america this year.ill 45th this year. but it will be solved for democrats and republicans look for reasonable ways toal limit the access of gunsl from those who have a t history of having a criminal thd felony or mental instability blame glad they cleaned of the house provision this defse f bill still goes too far with thatwe issue i will close by saying we're all committedheir f to our military and defense a of the united states thatd we

precludes the development of a nuclear weapon we will carefully monitor for nations in the region and we sut want to return to diplomacy before a military response.an i support that and i will continue.fense that we could have a better deal not oo nly to help the make military but those otherspsidedn who wereey funded by the the dtf non-defense side of the budget to make sure it is not lopsided.in: mr. psident, with many other non-defense res subjects.he i yield the floor.t >> mr. president i say with respect to the senator from mor illinois who justs by

authenticated talk is cheap. this is one of the morehe remarkable performances of the of the side. legislation that is vital to anr those in uniform but yet the senator from illinois says that we should not take care of them because he has another long problem that defies anything wih i have observed it is an authorization bill nothing to do with the appropriations process not s what needs to be spent or not with any type of mechanism. the democratic leader keep t talking about the fact theditiol

majority vote here in the united states senate calls for additional funding for defense now without direct contravention of friends on the riverside with the budget act in now oppose theentt of legislation to pay for the tthroops with special pay and bonuses to knock down bureaucratic to ensure a literal service member to maintain access to the medicines that they need from active duty literally if not hundreds of fre provisions to take care of the of men and women serving in the military base they tha turn it down because they don't like the way it is nat

fundedio the fight is on the appropriation not on the authorization to defend thiso nation., then come t to the men and women serving thn it is a disgrace please don't say you support the men and women in the military then voted againsthat this legislation. in this don't do it because any s objective observer will tell you that the provisions in this bill before the benefit of the men and women servingter in the all volunteer force. the senator from illinois once a better deal. i want a better deal i am tired of thus providinguestratin funds on the year-to-year ad hoc basis. the i hated sequestration i this think that does permitted to manage or risks that toe is a

"face the nation" at a timenese when there are more crisishis in the world than any timeng t since world war ii and theimpore chinese move into the island's with the most important avenue of commerce and my colleagues from either side of the aisle are complaining they don't like tim, the way it was funded. united this is a remarkable time. t find so with the insertion of with russia into syria that he did not find out which

secretary of state has said is an opportunity that is outde called unprofessional there now slaughtering young men who we trained in a river sent to fight against isis ande assad and the russians are dropping bombs on them. and incredible situation and in my view there never has been a greater need to authorize and fund our military which is facing more challenges since world war ii band today -- and today and my colleagues on for the other side of the aisle for all we'll urge a no vote tr the first time in 53 years not a specific issue our

but a broad issue of the budget my friends want ton the turn down our authorizationrge and my responsibilities to the men and women serving in the military i urge my colleagues to rethink their -isguided logic let's alllet's - sit down to try to negotiate to take care of all other aspects of our governmenteir but let's not do this to the frm men and women who arent serving prevent us from tha improving quality of life or do prevent them from having a pay raise to have the medical care that they needn let's not do these things in the name of a budgetary fight. on fin mr. president, i urge on the motion to proceed with finalow passage within the timeotion

arises i will talk more about it if we approve of the motion to proceed i suggest the absence of a quorum. >> this and that went on to a dance that compromise 73 / 26 vote. florida senator marco rubio was the only number not voting for the legislation provide $604 billion for the pentagon and defense related agencies block the rising overseas operations. president obama has already issued a veto threat against the bill the final vote is set for 2:00 p.m. eastern on wednesday followed live and the members gather up -- campbell back in 9:30 a.m. eastern.

followed the case with the new series landmark cases historic supreme court decisions, exploring 12 historic rulings by revealing the life and times of those that were the of plaintiffs and lawyers and justices. order your copy of the companion book $8.95 plus shipping

in which they can express those views. it gives them the opportunity and on the platform to have their voices heard. >> where the wide range of entries of aspects for every documentary that we get is content winners in the past were created by just using a cellphone and others by using more high tech equipment but it is the content that matters. >> many different issues that our important to them. really showing a wide variety. >> having many positive impacts.

>> become to the consensus that humans cannot run without food. >> children with disabilities to have an education. >> this year's theme is road to the white house what issue due on the candidates to discuss during the campaign is long into the campaign season one of the key requirements is to include footage from c-span2 complement and further their point of view but it is a great way to give more information that furthers their point. >> the first bill is the water resources reform and development act. >> we have all heard jokes faugh off with fish sticks

and mystery meat tacos. >> the government plays a vital role and it is especially vital for students with disabilities for. go to the web site you will vie paid more information about the rules and the requirements and teacher tips and rubrics to incorporate into their classroom and video and a way to contact us with questions the deadline is january 20, 2016 exactly one year away from the next presidential inauguration

>> thanks for that introduction but they give for the al outstanding work that you and your team do all across the country every single day. if you know, him you know, he is cool under pressure no doubt because he got his start and started his career as a firefighter. at the national fallen firefighters foundation and

how to be with those of the fallen to express the gratitude of the sacrifices that you and your families have made. >> the scripture tells us to serve one another as a good steward to employ and serve one another. every single day across our country men and women leave their families to save the lives of people they never met.

there are good stewards serving their neighborhoods and communities, our nation. with courage and fortitude and strength. we can never repay them fully for their sacrifices. but today those firefighters who gave their lives in service. our prayers are with their families to honor us with their presence today you remember as mom and dad and siblings and spouses and friends and neighbors. today we remember them and salute them as the hero's. if it is hard to think of a more selfless profession and

firefighting. there is a reason why it occupies a special place in our imagination to say i want to be a firefighter and then to put time the coach to override the human instinct of self preservation to literally walk through fire know you may never make it out because you try to save people utter strangers to

said they were just ordinary americans who were doing though work that they believed then to carry on a tradition. there is a humility that seems to be part of a firefighter. those that we honor today live a fundamental principle that i am my brother's keeper imi sister's keeper to look out for one another. there is something bigger than each of us individually that we have to be true to. we honor men like michael garett of western junior. miti started off as a junior

firefighter at the age of 16 because many empty by 18 on his way to graduate with an associate's degree in emergency services his mom says he was only smiling always a practical joker always the guy you could call in a pinch between school and work and the empty instructor he would be there to help the very last year he was pulling a seriously injured utility worker out of harm's way when a cell phone tower came crashing down. he was only 28 years old for about 20 years old he is survived his four siblings his dad and will always be remembered by his community as the man devoted to helping others he typifies what it means to be a

firefighter and serve others that is to kevin bell was a full-time firefighter and part-time d.j. his wife says the day he graduated from the fire academy was one of the happiest days of his life if he truly loved his work in like so many firefighters his daughter says he would hear from those he helped the french he assisted after a car accident or a classmate he drove to the hospital after a seizure.

he gave his life battling a house buyer and is survived by his parents and siblings because of the role model he was he is asking kids in his neighborhood who want to be firefighters like him we honor heroes like welcome the was the ago to buy no task too big or too small you could fix anything to marry a man who convicts everything the you can break [laughter] the outcome was a farmer when the county put out the call for volunteer firefighters to develop the

fire regional training academy he succumbed to a hartack end in today we remember a firefighter son has been father grandfather in front these are the individuals we honor today and even as we honor the 87 he rose we know their work is carried on by firefighters all across the nation with that same bravery and dedication and sense of duty is and humility and love of country. the reason years the battle to the most severe wildfire season so far nearly 50,000 have burned and

9 million acres larger than the entire state of maryland 32,000 were battling at its peak. 30 never lost their lives and today we honor them as well. we reaffirm that as a nation we must work to prevent fires and give them the support they need to come home safe. club cop with and finally this pays tribute to the names that do not appear on this wall as the testament to the families of these individuals who stand

alongside every firefighter across the nation because it doesn't stop at the firehouse with the brotherhood and extends to every community every mom and dad, a spouse, child who waits for their loved one to come home at the end of the shaft. all of the you are united by strength and sacrifice this is your family to for the families of the fallen we know the words cannot e is the pain of your loss but it helps to know the american people stand with you to honor your loved ones we admire them and we cherish the work that they do we

hold you in our hearts today and always in offer our deepest condolences and prayers and the eternal gratitude. these are extraordinary people that we honor today. extraordinary americans they set an example for us all made we watch over their families and all that protect us with their shining example inspire us all that each one has received a special gift as good stewards to the grace of god. thank you. [applause]

[applause] [inaudible conversations] >> be seated please say minke mr. president we appreciate your kind words and thank you for being with us this morning to honor our firefighters and families. the president will now unveiled the plaque of the 87 names of the fallen. this plaque will be added to the national firefighters' memorial in the coming coming-- mr. president please unveiled the plaque.

. . [applause] . .