quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: it is democratic leader.

mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, the bill before us is not fiscally responsible. our troops deserve real funding not gimmickry. the bill doesn't do the job. my republican friends like to talk about the deficit and debt and our need to get the fiscal house in order. now they're supporting legislation that increases deficit spending and increases the burden on our children and grandchildren. as a result, this bill violates the budget law. and so, mr. president, i raise a point of order that the pending measure violates section 3101 of s. con. res. 11, the concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year 2016. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president, pursuant to section 904 of the congressional budget act of 1974 and the waiver provisions applicable budget resolution, i move to waive all applicable sections of the act for the budget resolution for purposes of the conference report to

accompany h.r. 1735. and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. under the previous order, all postcloture time is expired. the question occurs on the motion to -- i'm sorry. the question appears on the motion to waive. the yeas and nays are ordered. 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 this vote, the yeas are 1, the nays are 26. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having vote ed in the the affirmative, the motion is agreed to and the point of order fails. the question 0 cuss on the adoption -- the question occurs on the adoption of the conference report. is there a sufficient second?

there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote: vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 70. the nays are 27. the conference report is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to calendar number 96, h.r. 2028. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to proceed. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 96, h.r. 2028, an act making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2016, and for other purposes.

mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: mr. president, i rise today to talk about the recent developments in the u.s. trade policy and their implications for the future. over this past weekend the officials from the obama administration allege with 11 -- along with 11 other countries reach what they believe will be the terms on the trans-pacific partnership, or t.p.p. if enact, the t.p.p. would be the largest trade agreement in history encompassing approximately, or roughly 40% of the world economy and setting standards for one of the most dynamic parts of the world, the asia pacific. i will repeat what i've said before. i believe a strong t.p.p. agreement is essential for advancing our nation's economic and strategic interests in the asia-pacific region.

while i've often touted the potential benefits of t.p.p., i've been clear that i will not support just any t.p.p. agreement. the united states has only one chance to negotiate, consider and implement the t.p.p. we have got to get it right. under our system of government, both the executive and legislative branches play essential roles in developing and implementing our trade policies. and while the administration has the power to reach agreements with other countries, no such agreement can go into force without congress's approval. congress is not just a rubber stamp in this process. we have an obligation to evaluate every trade agreement and determine if it advances our nation's interests and serves the needs of our constituents. toward that end, as i continue to review the deal that was struck in atlanta, three important considerations will determine whether i can support

this agreement. first, the deal must be balanced and meet the u.s. negotiating objectives established under our t.p.a. statute which congress passed earlier this year with strong bipartisan majorities in both houses, in both the house and senate. second, i must have confidence that our trading partners will actually live up to the commitments they made under the agreement by implementing the terms and obligations included in the deal. third, the agreement must be subjected to a thorough and rigorous congressional review, including in-depth consultation with the administration. before i talk about these factors in more detail, i want to acknowledge the many years of hard work that officials in the administration, particularly those at the office of the u.s. trade representative, have put into it get the agreement this far. i particularly want to acknowledge the hard work of the

lead negotiators at ustr who have sacrificed for years to bring this agreement to conclusion. i also want to acknowledge that over time they made a great deal of progress on a variety of fronts. but now that the administration says that it's reached an agreement, it's time for congress to intensify its review of t.p.p. the primary standards by which i and i would hope all of my colleagues will judge this trade agreement are set forth clearly in our t.p.a. statute. as one of the original authors of the current t.p.a. law, i worked hard to ensure that it just didn't -- that it didn't just represent my priorities for trade agreements, but those of a bipartisan majority in both the house and the senate. the congressional negotiating objectives that we included in the statute spell out in detail what must be included in the trade agreement in order for it

to get congress's approval. the negotiating objectives we included in our t.p.a. law aren't just pro forma. they aren't suggestions or mere statements of members' preferences. they represent the view of the bipartisan majority in congress as to the rights and obligations the trade agreement must contain when it is finalized and submitted for our consideration. i have to say that no one in congress worked harder or longer than i did to get that t.p.a. bill across the finish line. and i was joined by many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to put in significant time and effort as we drafted the bill, got it through the committee and passed it here on the floor. in fact, if you'll recall, mr. president, in the senate we end up having to pass it twice. and since the day we passed the bill, i as well as many of my colleagues in both the house and senate have been urging officials and the administration

to do all they can to conclude a t.p.p. agreement that a majority in congress can support. unfortunately, when we look at some of the outcomes of the final round of negotiations, it's not clear if the administration achieved that goal. for example, it is not immediately apparent whether the agreement contains administerrable and enforceable provisions to protect intellectual property rights similar to those found in u.s. law. as you recall, this was the key negotiating objective that we included in our t.p.a. law and a necessary component if we want our trade agreements to advance our nation's interests in the 21st century economy. i have serious concerns as to whether the administration did enough to accomplish this objective. this is particularly true with the provisions that govern data exclusivity for buy logics. as you know biologics are drugs,

formulas that are on the cutting edge of medicine and have transformed major elements of the health care landscape thanks in large part to the efforts of investments of american companies. and i might add it's one of the principal industries where we might not only be able to find treatments, but also cures. it's one of the three or four things that i think can bring down health care costs immeasureably. i'm not one to argue that parties to a negotiation should refuse to compromise. in fact, i've come to the floor many times over the years and espoused sometimes at great lengths the merits of being able to find a compromise. but -- and this is an important point -- a good compromise usually results in something of greater overall value for all the parties involved. and at least according to the

information available, it is unclear whether this administration achieved that kind of an outcome for american innovators. aside from biologics there are other elements that may have fallen short of congress's negotiating standards. for example, there are issues with some of the market excess provisions on agriculture, the inclusion products and sectors from some of the allegations as well as some potential overreaching on labor commitments. while we can't make final determinations on any of these issues without seeing the final text of the agreement, initial indications are that these items could be problematic when the agreement is submitted to congress for approval. in the end, congress will need to take a good look at the entire agreement and judge whether the agreement satisfies the standards we put forward in our t.p.a. law. beyond the negotiating

objectives, we need to have confidence that any elements of -- or the key elements of a t.p.p. agreement will be implemented and respected by our trading partners. there are a number of important elements to consider when we talk about enforcement and implementation, but for now, i'll speak once again about intellectual property rights. for too long, indeed for decades now, american innovators and investors haven't been able to take full advantage of our trade agreements because, quite simply, many of our trading partners either refuse to enforce intellectual property obligations or fail to implement them altogether. all too often, this administration has looked the other way as other countries steal u.s. innovation and intellectual property. if countries want to trade with the u.s., we should demand that they respect and enforce intellectual property rights of american businesses and individuals.

that means including strong provisions protecting intellectual property in our trade agreements and a requirement that intellectual property rights amendments be implemented before allowing the agreement to enter into force for our trading partners. unfortunately, implementation of these types of commitments is one area where this administration has come up short in the past. before congress can approve an agreement as vast as the t.p.p., we need to be sure that this has changed. we need to have detailed assurances that our trading partners will live up to all of their commitments and a clear road map as to how the administration intends to hold them accountable. finally, mr. president, i expect that pursuant to both the letter and spirit of t.p.a., the administration will communicate and work closely with congress over the coming weeks and months. in the short term, that means deep and meaningful

consultations before the president signs the agreement. under our t.p.a. law, the president must inform congress of his intent to sign an agreement at least 90 days before doing so. this period is an essential part of congressional consideration of the deal. congress reserved this time in the statute to ensure that we would have ample opportunity to review the content of a trade agreement before it is signed by the president. in order for that review to take place, congress must have access to the full text of the agreement, including annexes and any side agreements, before the president provides his 90-day notice. this is a vital element of t.p.a., mr. president. the law was designed specifically to give congress all the necessary tools to conduct an exhaustive evaluation of any and all trade agreements and to ensure the administration is fully accountable, both to

congress and to our public. there are a number of provisions and timelines in the law that help us achieve these goals. i won't list them all on the floor today -- here on the floor today. instead, i will just say that i expect the full cooperation of the administration in meeting all of these mandates. the american people demand no less. there are no shortcuts. let's be clear. our nation could clearly benefit from a strong t.p.p. agreement, and i hope that in the end that's what we get, and these other nations can, too. and in the end, i hope that -- i hope that this agreement meets all the challenges that we've thrown out. unfortunately, i have real reservations as to whether the agreement reached over the past weekend meets the high standards set by congress. i will not make a definitive statement on the overall merits of the agreement until i have a chance to review it in its

entirety. for now, i'll just say that i'm worried. i'm worried that we didn't get as good a deal as we could have. i'm worried that the administration didn't achieve a balanced outcome covering the congressional negotiating objectives set out in t.p.a. and ultimately, i'm worried that there won't be enough support in congress for this agreement and that our country will end up missing out on important opportunities. i hope i'm wrong, mr. president. i will continue to scrutinize this agreement as details emerge. before i can support the t.p.p. deal struck in atlanta, i must be convinced that the t.p.p. is a balanced agreement that complies with the t.p.a. law and that it has clear, implementable rules that our trading partners will follow. the t.p.p. is a once in a lifetime opportunity to define high standard rules for the asia

pacific and to gain the real access to overseas markets that our businesses and our workers need. i intend to do all i can to ensure that the agreement meets these goals. with that, mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: i'm pleased to come to the floor today -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. blunt: i move we suspend the quorum call.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blunt: mr. president, i'm pleased to come to the floor today to express my support for the final conference report, what we need to do as a congress to authorize the work that can be done to defend the country, and i want to urge the president to sign this bill for -- this bill. for 54 straight years now, the senate has done its job in authorizing the things that need to be done to defend the country. they passed the bill. this fulfills part of that responsibility to defend the country. it's the first responsibility of the federal government to defend the country. this is something that can't be done better somewhere else. it's something that has to be done by us. and two things have to happen, mr. president, for that to be done. we have to authorize the spending and the way this -- in the way this bill does, and then we have to appropriate the money once that spending has been authorized. now, the majority -- the

majority voted several weeks ago to debate the appropriating bill, but we couldn't get even six democrats to join us to debate that bill. well, now this bill has passed, so maybe the next move is to pass the bill that funds what's just been authorized. it's passed the house, it's passed the senate, and the commander in chief of the united states is saying he would -- would veto the national defense authorization bill. the president apparently believes that the defense of the country is a legitimate bargaining chip in how we spend all other money. the president somehow has latched onto this idea that he proposed a few years ago that all spending be equal, that you would take all of the discretionary spending in the country and half of that would be for defense and half of that would be for everything else

that's discretionary, an increasingly small part of the budget because the mandatory spending is what continues to grow. the discretionary spending, the spending that people think about when they think about the federal government, gets smaller every year, but even with that challenge in front of us, the president apparently has the position that no matter how dangerous the world is, no matter what's happening in ukraine or no matter what's happening in crimea, no matter what's happening in syria, no matter what's happening in response to the iranian agreement, that you have to have more money for everything else if you're going to have more money for defense, that somehow more money for the e.p.a. and more money for the i.r.s. is equal to the responsibility the federal government has to defend the country. we saw little of that again just a few weeks ago when the appropriators brought the

defense appropriating bill to the floor with a vote of 23-7. it means lots of democrats and lots of republicans voted for that bill, but when it got to the floor, we couldn't get the number it took to bring it up. now, this bill, the authorizing bill, just passed the senate with 70 votes. it passed the house with 270 votes. this bill fully supports the number that the president said we needed to defend the country. this is like not taking yes for an answer. when the president says this is how much money we need to defend the country and the congress appropriates the money the president says we need to defend the country and then the president says well, but we need the money for a lot of other things, too, and i'm only going to be for what i was for. this is the president's number. i am only going to be the amount of money i will support to defend the country if i get the

amount of money i want to do everything else. that's not a very good formula for either democracy or making the system work. this has the base funding for the department of defense. it has the defense funding, the national security funding for the department of energy. it has money involved for the overseas contingency fund that was created when things are happening outside the country that we didn't anticipate, and surely that's the case. the president was just saying just in the three years ago that the russians weren't a problem, that that was a cold war idea, that the russians could be a problem. he was saying three or four years ago that assad must go. clearly, things are not working out like we thought so it's probably time to use the overseas contingency fund as this does. this provides money for the intelligence-related programs. i'm on the senate committee that

the c.i.a., the director of national intelligence, others report to, and they are publicly not at all shy about saying that more things are coming at the country from more different directions with more potential danger than ever before, so they need to be funded. the activities have stressed those agencies in a lot of ways, but another way you can stress them is not let them know whether they're going to have the money necessary to do their job. our allies are constantly confused by the lack of resolve on our part. back when you're looking at this from some other country and you say well, the president got the amount of money he wanted in a defense bill that met the -- met the needs that the president proposed, but he doesn't want to sign the authorization bill now because he is not happy with all the other spending, that's a pretty confuseing message. just like the confusing message when the president draws a red

line in syria but it doesn't mean anything, but when you don't enforce the red line, then not just assad is emboldened, but all of our adversaries are determined at that point that there may be new ways to test the united states and itsal ice that they hadn't thought of before. so before you know it, the russians are in crimea, the russians are in ukraine, now the russians are in syria, and what we're watching unfold in syria -- and i want to emphasize watching unfold, as if we were spectators in an area of the world that since world war ii the united states of america has done what was necessary to see that there wasn't a russian presence there. what we're watching unfold there is clearly the result of a strategy that's confusing but it's also pretty darn confusing when the president says he's

going to veto the defense authorization bill. we see china moving in the south china sea in ways we wouldn't have anticipated take a -- taking a five-acre island and turning it into a 3,000-acre military base. we see iran spreading its bad influence with the new resources that it now has. when the united states of america, mr. president, leaves a leadership vacuum in the world today, bad things rush to fill that vacuum, and when that happens, when there is less u.s. leadership, when there is less u.s. presence, when there is less u.s. positive encouragement in the world, that almost always produces the wrong kind of results, and it almost always produces hasty decisions that cost america more in lives and

international respect than we would have had otherwise. the president can take a positive step here by saying just 70 senators and 270 house members voted for this bill. i'm going to sign this bill that the president wants to have a fight, if there is still a fight to be had, we shouldn't be having a fight about appropriating the money that would then be authorized, but there is still a fight to be had, because remember this bill, mr. president, doesn't spend one dime. it just creates the authorization to spend money if that money is appropriated. this is a good bill, it's a responsible bill. it eliminates waste and unnecessary spending. it trims down bloated headquarters and administrative over head at the highest levels of the military so that more money goes to the families and the troops that defend us and goes to the place where the fight is.

it contains the most sweeping defense acquisition reforms in a generation. it helps sustain quality of life for the people who serve in their families. and by the way, mr. president, i have introduced a bill with senator gillibrand yesterday on -- a bill that focuses on family stability, and when we were doing that, i was able to quote the recently retired chief of staff of the army, general ordierno, who said the strength of the military is in the families of the military. this bill does things that move in the right direction there. it authorizes a pay rise for those people serving below the grade of colonel. it requires the department of defense and the veterans administration to establish a joint uniform -- formulary to assure our troops have timely access to the medicines they need. the bill authorizes commonsense reforms in a 70-year-old

outdated retirement system, currently 83% of the people who serve in the military don't benefit from the retirement system. if this bill would pass, service members exiting the military have more choices resulting in about 80% of the people who leave the military getting a retirement benefit instead of 80% not getting a retirement benefit. it keeps in place restrictions that bring detainees at guantanamo and keep them there. it prohibits the transfer of guantanamo retains to places like yemen and libya and syria and somalia. six and a half years after taking office, the president's never produced a plan to close guantanamo and the congress and the chairman of the senate armed services committee are still waiting to hear what his plan

might be. as terrorism spreads across the globe, we also don't appear to have a plan to do what we need to do with the law of war detainees that we do see brought into under our control or the control of our allies around the country. the challenges faced by the intelligence committee are unlike any past challenges that we've seen. cybersecurity has -- maybe is more cyber insecurity than cybersecurity -- defending the critical infrastructure of the country is too much information on too many people in too many places. previously our people who wanted to get our information had to be pretty close and likely to be detectable. now our adversaries can be in the middle of the desert somewhere in syria or around the world using satellite technology to hack into, as it turned out

recently, u.s. government personnel records. you've got to hope that the military, the dot-mil is more secure than the dot-gov but that doesn't happen if we don't provide the money. and, mr. president, there are a number of priorities in my state that are reflected in this. we have a great training base at st. joseph, missouri, where c-130 aircraft pilots from all over our country and from 16 of our allied countries trained last year. this bill would provide the aircraft upgrades for that c-130 training. it provides the necessary resources for geospatial intelligence activities in the country. the bill includes military construction funding for a new consolidated nuclear stealth and deterrence facility at whiteman air force base. whiteman air force base, missouri's proud to have that base as the home of the b-2

bomber system, the stealth bomber system, where dedicated airmen stand by at a moment's notice to let our allies know that we could reach anywhere any time from that base and they are unlikely to know we're there until we get there. and finally, this bill includes critical funding to keep the army ready, equipped and trained. fort leonard wood, the army trains approximately 80,000 soldiers there every year. and while i was disappointed with the announced reductions at fort leonard wood that are scheduled to occur in 2017, the number of uniforms positioned at that installation will still be higher than they were in 2001. the army's decision to minimize reductions at fort leonard wood was a decision that i think anybody who understands the fort would agree with. in summary, mr. president, i'd just like to say to the president of the united states, this bill provides for our common defense.

that is your number-one responsibility as commander in chief. blocking this bill will keep us less safe and less secure. mr. president, sign this bill. i believe there's now an absence of a quorum and maybe i'd suggest that we have a quorum call. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: mr. president, i'd like to ask the quorum call be eviscerated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lankford: mr. president, it's not uncommon for me when i'm around oklahoma at home that i'll have a mom that will approach marriage penalty -- approach me at different town hall meetings or a store or restaurant. it's very interesting what she wants to talk to me about. almost always the moms that

approach me lately want to talk to me about national security. they want to talk to me about the fear that they have that the world is spinning out of control and they're very concerned about their kids and they're concerned about terrorism coming to the united states. there's a sense of a loss of trust that's happening with a lot of moms in oklahoma that this is a safe world and a safe place. i can't tell you that that's isolated. as i've talked to other members of this body, seem to find the same theme coming up over and over again as toe talk to -- as they talk to people at home. they want to know, is the american government doing its primary responsibility of maintaining security and protecting american citizens around the world. i would love to be able to tell her yes. quite frankly, this has become a very, very chaotic world. and the challenges that we face need clear messaging about what we plan to do and then the actual intent to actually do that, to be able to follow up on those intentions. to have a plan for national policy for defense and then to

do it. it seems straightforward and simple. well, the national defense authorization is one of those areas where congress and the president have for decades agreed on a national policy for defense, have laid out that perspective and then it is the president's responsibility as commander in chief to be able to fulfill that. that is the primary responsibility of the united states government. well, the challenge is, our world is in utter turmoil and it's not being fulfilled. passage today of the national defense authorization by 70-27, which is a rare vote in the senate to have that much bipartisan agreement on something, is a significant next step. it has passed the house already. it has now passed the senate with a veto-proof majority and it is headed to the president's desk, where he has threatened a veto, of all things, for a national plan for defense. it is a statement and an emotion from americans -- please, get a clear national policy. we feel like the world is on fire and somebody needs to

provide a clear path. that's what this is. and i'm astounded by the conversation about a possible veto threat from the president of the united states, even when it passes the senate by a veto-proof majority. now, where are we and what's really going on right now? let's just take a look at the world today and what's happening in realtime. the middle east is absolutely rocked to its core with violence. and there's this perception that the united states is disconnected from it. i would tell you, that is untrue we're just not providing clarity in the plan. and in a moment when we have men and women in harm's way across the entire middle east, i am astounded the president's talking about a veto and to provide even more instability in that. let me give you an example of what i'm talking about when i talk about men and women in harm's way, because there are many americans that don't hear about the ongoing battle that's happening right now in iraq and syria and how our sons and daughters are already very engaged in what's happening there. there is this belief, i believe, given by the president that

we're really not there because we never talk about it. so let's talk about just yesterday. this is yesterday over iraq and syria and what happened. near abu kamal, three strikes from the americans on two separate iso crude oil collection points. that was in syria yesterday. in iraq, one strike destroyed two isil rocket rails near kirkuk. two strikes struck two separate isil units, destroyed two heavy machine gun units and an isil fighting position. three other strikes suppressed two isil rocket positions and an isil mortar position and an isil sniper position. near mosul, three strikes struck an isil tactical unit, destroyed three isil heavy machine guns, three isil fighting positions, and an sigh sill mortar position. near ramadi, five strikes struck five separate units, destroyed

three fighting positions, two isil buildings, an isil bunker and denied isil to terrain they were pursuing. near sinjar, one strike destroyed an isil heavy machine gun. one strike suppressed and isil rocket position. near teleafar, two strikes suppressed and isil mortar position. near tikrit, one strike destroyed four areas. that's yesterday. now americans had this belief that we are disconnected. we are a nation that is engaged, but the challenge is, that is h- there's no clea clearman clear . in a moment when we have this many strikes that are happening in syria and iraq and i can go on and on about what's happening with our special forces in afghanistan and across the rest of the region, as i'll describe

in a moment, at this moment with this going on, the president is going to veto the national defense authorization with this kind of bipartisan support, when the whole nation is saying, give us a plan because we feel insecure? currently we're trying and failing to train and equaip moderate opposition forces in syria. currently we're trying to give kurds all the equipment they need to hold the line against isil. there are millions of displaced that are fleeing across europe, that are trying to find someplace of respite. in yemen we're supporting the saudi-led coalition as the iranians are causin causing akuo become a reality. in libya there is still an unbelievable vacuum left by the incomplete campaign which has resulted in isis get a foothold in a very divided liberiaia. they have not been able to form

a government in several years now. egypt is face ago growing terrorist threat in sinai. there's all tit for tat. in africa we are still hunting a despicable mad man with no success. africom is trying to assist forces that are kicking out el shah bab. south sudan has answer strombly fragile peace agreement. and boko haram continues to grow in west africa rapidly. in mexico and other parts of latin america, drug thugs are running ram pands and pushing drugs into the united states in record amounts. destabilizing many of our cities. in afghanistan, a new offensive by the taliban threatens to roll back the progress we've made. d.n.i. clapper testified that the world is still facing an emergency -- emerging and rapidly growing cyber threat.

it is not just a cyber threat to the american government, it is every american citizen, as many american citizens have personally experienced in the recent days. so let's look to the future. and some of the plans that are ongoing. from iran, we heard from secretary kerry and is this administration that a nuclear deal would lead to a more peaceful middle east. since the agreement woos announced, we've seen iran continue to arm the houthi rebels, continue to support hezbollah and their expansion, continue to aggressively prop up the syrian dictator, mr. assad. some of us have stated quit thil will make the region less stable. in just five years, iran can begin importing large amounts of conventional weapons under this deal. so an iran that is already supporting large amounts of terrorism will only become better-equipped in the days to come. in china, they had a state visit here recently. lots of broad promises about

cooperation. meanwhile we know much of the cyber threat emanates from china. they are building islands in disputed waters, airfields capable of holding military assets. they are gipping to build a world-class -- they are beginning to build a world-class navy. china continues to be a leader in human rights violations. in russia we've heard several of our top military commanders say there is a long list of threats, the threats they are most concerned about is a growing russia. putin walked into crimea and the world watched. he continues to threaten eastern ukraine and the world watches. he's now ex-sponding russian adventures into the middle east supporting the iranian-backed-up assad in syria. he's attack the moderate opposition forces attempting to defend their own families. this is not a new van guard against terrorism. this is an expansion of the russian bear. so what are we doing about it?

we are trying to actually put out a clear plan. where are we going in national defense? what are we going to do to stop terrorism and the expansion of terrorists around the world? instead of the white house cooperating with us, they're threaten ago veto of the ndaa. it is unbelievable to me. it is astounding to me that we're spending -- that the white house is spending more time trying to make a deal with iran than they are trying to support our own military. what does this do? what i does this agreement realy accomplish? the national defense authorization -- let me give you a few things that are in here that the president is now saying he's going to veto. here's one. the personal carry of firearms so post commanders are allowed to permit -- after the attack that happened at chattanooga this is something that the american people have called on.

it is included in this bill. protections in cyber threats. stronger cyber operations capabilities. threaten to safeguard our technical superiority. intelligence equipping. ensuring our analysts remain a priority at the national level. the ndaa extends vital authorities for our forces in afghanistan as we try to deal with what is happening on the ground there. it authorizes the iran military power report for 10 additional years, reflecting congress' view that iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons capability and its military activities constitute a grave threat to regional stability in the u.s. national security interests. ndaa reinforces the mission against the islamic state of iraq against isil. congress authorizes through this the european reassurance initiative to address russia's warfare and unconventional warfare methods whether in the ukraine or across the area.

bicameral, bipartisan efforts. ndaa allocates $30 million for d.o.d. unique capables addressing the threats of instability in central america. dealing with the pacific region, this conference remains concerned about america's strategy in the asian pacific region. ndaa requires the president to make a clear strategy for this "pivot to asia." the defense department also has a greater emphasis under this agreement of the ndaa for security cooperation with all parts of the world, to make sure we have a consistent strategy. if you want to talk about just individual members of the military, this ndaa changes how retirement is done. 83% of the individuals that serve in our military don't receive any kind of retirement at the end of it. this allows those 83% of the

individuals to actually be able to participate in a retirement benefit in their retirement from the military, even if they don't make it all the way to 20 years. this is a dramatic shift, not only in supporting the war fighter but in actually setting a strategy of where we need to go to provide some clarity to individuals at home and to our troops in the field. now, the president's statement that he's going to veto this have come under two areas. he's said he's going to veto this because the funding mechanism comes from the overseas contin yency operating fund. the acronym o.c.o., because the fund something comog fro from cm o.c.o., he is going to veto it. and he doesn't like what it says about guantanamo. keeping those individuals that are attacked our nation at guantanamo. when i was starting to pull this and be able to look at the figures, leat me give you the last several years. just since 2013, the o.c.o.

funding was $89 billion. in 2013, the president signed that. in 2014, o.c.o. funding, $81 billion. the president signed that. 2015, o.c.o. funding $64 billion. the president signed that. this year the o.c.o. funding is $89 billion. right there in the same range as the previous four years. but this year he's saying, no, i can't sign it as ow o.c.o. fund. can somebody tell me the difference 1234 this idifferenc? in this statement on preventing funding, moving the terrorists from guantanamo bay to the united states, which i can tell new my state, people are adamantly opposed to moving the terrorists from guantanamo bay to the united states. going all the way back to 2011, that ndaa prevented moving prisoners from guantanamo. 2012 prevented it.

2013 prevented it. 2014 prevented it. 2015 prevented it. all of those the president signed. but for some strange reason, this year the president has said, it has o.c.o. funds, just like every other year in the past, and it deals with guantanamo, just like every other year in the past. this is a season when we need to bring clear voices and a clear mission, not politics. this is the primary mission that we have as a federal government. take care of our national defense, provide a clear messaging. i am proud of this senate for finishing the conference report on the ndaa and sending it to the president's desk. i would ask the commander in chief to stand with the troops, to sign this, and let's get on to providing some clarity in the days ahead. with that, mr. president, i

yield the floor. mr. coats: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: mr. president, first of all, i want to commend my colleague, a partner on the senate intelligence committee, for his recent remarks here delivered on the floor. it was our director of national intelligence, admiral clapper, who said in all of his plus-50 years of serving in intelligence functions, first for the military and now as direct of national intellectual jeeps, neafers seehe's nen never seen o

troubled, threats to our way of life, country, allies, threats to world order. and my colleague from oklahoma, senator lankford, just laid out in specific detail the multitude of threats, the multitude of dysfunction and chaos that is existing, not just in the middle east but throughout the world. and i won't repeat any of that but i want to thank him for bringing atption to the fact that -- afengs to the attentiot that we live in very uncertain times that require leadership. understand that leadershiand thl the history have pointed to united states as the democratic leadership necessary to deal with this type -- these types of issues and provide direction of leadership to our allies and to the world as well as show strength to our adversaries that has restrained some of their actions.

that is missing. there is a huge void being left by the lack of any kind of sensible policy, if there is a policy at all, coming out of this particular white house and from this president. this vacuum that's been created has allowed the opportunity for those who seek to do us harm, to do others harm, and those who seek to use power to achieve their means literally a blank check and a free hand, knowing that there is no order here in terms of addressing this in a successful way. so i want to thank my colleague for defining this on the floor in and i certainly want to support and hopefully my colleagues will pay attention to this serious challenge that america faces. -- with a lack of a coherent strategy and lack of decisive leadership that's not coming to us from the white house. today something far less consequential, but still consequential from the

standpoint that it is a contributor to another major threat that americans face, and that is a threat of an unrelenting, continuing drop deeper and deeper penetration into the debt hole. i have been engaged in everything from the major programs, hopefully done in a bipartisan way, support with the president, all of which have failed to address this and bring us -- turn us to a pact of fiscal health -- to a path of fiscal health to the small, almost ridiculous spending that has taken place here, for those who are looking at it from bottom up instead of from top down. so whether it is something that i have tried to identify every week now for about 22 to 23 weeks called the waste of the week, hopefully it will provide the kind of embarrassment to my colleagues and knowledge of the fact that w