clarify that military units, including the national guard, can continue to receive nominal leases. if an airport and a military unit agree to renew a low-cost leashes, they should be able to -- low-cost lease they should be able to proceed without concern that the f.a.a. will revoke grant authority. the communities that host our military bases are proud of their role in national defense. these airports shouldn't have to choose between continuing to host a military tenant and maintaining eligibility for grants that can improve the safety and efficiency of local airport operations. again i want to applaud leader mcconnell, leader reid, chairman thune and ranking member nelson for the work on this important bipartisan legislation, and i urge my colleagues to support its passage early next week. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator -- the majority whip. mr. cornyn: thank you, madam president. i'd ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: madam president, it

may not look like it now, but we're actually making great progress in moving forward with a critical piece of legislation that would reauthorize the federal aviation administration, and in the process make flying safer and more efficient for all of our citizens. members across the aisle have worked together on this legislation, and i know we'll have an important vote at 5:30 on monday and hopefully be able to process some of the amendments that have been agreed upon by the managers of the bill which are a part of the manager's package. but i wanted to turn to a topic that has concerned me a lot over the last year and troubles me more each day, and that is the use by former secretary of state hillary clinton of an unsecured private email server while serving as our nation's top

diplomat. we've known about her private email server for a while now and the great lengths that she has gone to avoid compliance with some pretty important laws that congress has passed and have been signed into law by the president of the united states. i believe transparency in government is very important in terms of building public confidence for what we are actually doing. that's why even when i was at the state level as texas attorney general, i was an avid supporter of open records and open meetings legislation, so the public had an access and saw their right to know honored. here in congress, since i have gotten here, i have been working closely with my ideological opposite, senator pat leahy from vermont. he on the left end of the spectrum, me on the right end of the spectrum, but both agreeing

that the public's right to know is so important when it comes to self-government and what the public doesn't know can hurt them. that's why back when lyndon johnson signed the freedom of information act into law, that's why it passed with such broad support and continues to enjoy that kind of broad support today. because it -- it applies the principle of transparency and accountability and in the process helps build public confidence for what congress is doing on -- on the people's behalf. but it's pretty clear that secretary clinton sought to evade that important -- those important laws by setting up this private email server. i know most people are familiar with the dot-com domains that we use perhaps at your home or my home. then we have the dot-gov domain

which is used by government agencies and the like, but then there is a dot-mil which is used by the department of defense which is a classified system, and there is actually another system that operates independently which carries the most sensitive classified information circulated by our intelligence community around the world. now, those are important distinctions because those don't necessarily talk to each other. in fact, they are not connected to the internet. the classified intelligence system server is not connected to the military classified system or to the dot-gov system and certainly not to the dot-com or the private email server. i have just not heard another example of anybody who has been quite so careless, to use the president's term, or reckless, to use my term, with how private email service -- servers are used to conduct official

business, and there is a lot of risk associated with that. the former secretary of state we know did delete tens of thousands of emails that were once on the server. in other words, she hadn't turned those over to the state department to vet and determine whether they complied with court orders requiring the state department to produce emails that were producible under the freedom of information act. she just deleted them. we know that her emails contained classified information, some at very high levels of government classification. as many of our nation's top security experts will tell you, it's likely that our adversaries had easy access to and monitored secretary clinton's unsecured server, as well as the sensitive communications that were contained on it. you know, as secretary of state, you are a member of the president's cabinet. you are operating at the highest

levels of classification with very sensitive information, and it's just simply irresponsible to subject that information to the -- to the efforts by our nation's adversaries to capture it and read it and use it to their advantage. so all of this should concern all of us, and i'm not just talking about the political ramifications. this is not primarily about politics, but secretary clinton's actions were such an extreme breach of the nation's confidence that they -- and they potentially gave away extremely sensitive information that put our national security in jeopardy, not to mention the lives of those who serve our country in the intelligence community and who -- whose very identity may have been revealed by this very sensitive classified information. so this is not a trivial matter. we need to treat this seriously,

and the facts must be pursued in a thorough, impartial investigation. now, i know most people don't really believe there is such a thing as an impartial investigation here in washington, d.c., but there is f counsel that has been created by congress to provide some measure of independence from the department of justice. that is called a special counsel. and it is up to the attorney general herself whether to appoint the special counsel when she recognized that there is an apparent conflict of interest or at least an appearance of partiality that ought to be dealt with by the appointments of -- appointment of a special counsel. so given the unprecedented nature of this case and the unavoidable conflicts of interest, i strongly believe that there is no other appropriate action for attorney general loretta lynch to take than to appoint a special

counsel in this case. to get to the bottom of it, to follow the facts wherever they may lead and to make sure that the law is applied impartially and fairly wherever those may fall. the american people were reminded of the need for special counsel just last weekend when once again president obama opined publicly about the investigation. in an interview on sunday, president obama dismissed the email scandal by splitting hairs about how the government classifies information. according to the president, get this, he said there is classified and then there is classified information. attempting to draw meaningless distinctions between levels of classification, suggesting that release or exposure of some classified information was okay as long as it wasn't the

classified information, which supposedly he would say should be kept from our nation's adversaries and kept confidential. president obama, in other words, was trying to indicate that even though classified information was on secretary clinton's private server, that he somehow difficult iend that it was not of the type sensitive -- that was so sensitive that it would put our country in jeopardy. well, first of all, we know that some of secretary clinton's emails were classified even beyond confidential to the secret and top secret/special access program levels, the highest levels -- some of the highest levels of classification. and second, the president's comments have to be confusing to many public servants around the country who, as part of their daily work, handle classified information. and the way they do it when they are issued a national security

clearance or sane a nondisclosure agreement. according to the president, it must be okay to expose some classified information to public view but not others, and i -- i can guess that people who work in that world must be somewhat confused and perplexed by the president's statement. to dismissively talk about the different levels of classification is not only wrong but, frankly, it's insulting to americans who work tirelessly on a daily basis to protect our national security, and in particular those who go to great lengths to properly and carefully handle classified information, even when it isn't particularly convenient. but perhaps worse, the president was opining publicly on the results of an ongoing criminal investigation over which it turns out he knows absolutely nothing, at least if you believe the key players in that investigation. although he claims to adhere to

a strict line between himself and an investigation, president obama repeatedly suggests his desired outcome and acts as if -- or acts as if he is secretary clinton's front line of defense. here's president obama in the same interview. he said that he -- quote -- "continues to believe that secretary clinton has not jeopardized america's national security." well, how in the world could the president possibly know that if, in fact, there's a strict line between himself and the investigation? and if, as attorney general lynch has testified in front of the senate judiciary committee and f.b.i. director comey has likewise testified, there has been no reporting to the white house about the results of the ongoing investigation. everybody understands that would be improper. that would be improper. but the president somehow

suggests that it's all okay and he knows, when, in fact, he doesn't know. well, how could the president possibly know that, especially when the president made clear last sunday, he has not been -- quote -- "sorting through each and every aspect of the issue." by the president's own admission, he doesn't talk to the attorney general or the f.b.i. director about ongoing investigations, and he certainly isn't conducting it so he wouldn't have personal knowledge. under no circumstances does this kind of commentary by the -- is this kind of commentary by the president okay. there's simply no way to read it that it doesn't run a serious risk of trying to influence the outcome of the investigation, which everybody should recognize would be completely improper. but the president has done this before. so has his spokesman, the white house press secretary. time and time again the white

house has projected its desired outcome in this investigation to the public and, worse, to those people conducting it. as i said, it's completely inappropriate. but don't just take it from me. last month the judiciary committee heard testimony from attorney general loretta lynch, as i mentioned a moment ago. i conveyed to her at the time the need for a special counsel to investigate the case. but at the hearing, attorney general lynch testified it was her hope that everyone, including the white house, would stay silent when it comes to commenting on an ongoing investigation by the f.b.i. i couldn't agree with her more. the responsible thing for the president to do would be to say nothing, particularly if he knows nothing about the content of an ongoing criminal investigation. and i wish the president would take advice from his lawyer, the attorney general of the united

states, and would respect her prerogative as the nation's chief law enforcement officer and the reputation of the federal bureau of investigation. now, director comey made clear that the f.b.i. does not care for politics. it doesn't play politics. and, in fact, the credibility and integrity of the f.b.i. depends upon them not playing politics. so why is the president playing politics with law enforcement? well, the threat of a president influencing an ongoing investigation, intentionally or otherwise, is not something we must just accept. what we need is an investigation that is as independent as possible. so i hope that the attorney general, perhaps in light of the president's comments attempting to influence the investigation, i can thin can think of no othen

he would say what he did, i hope the attorney general reconsiders his refusal to appoint a special counsel in this case. at the very least, i hope the president quits talking about a subject he knows nothing about, which is what the investigation is revealing and let the justice department do its job without feeling the pressure that apparently the white house is tempted to impose on the f.b.i. and the department of justice. madam president, i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: quorum call:

as well as the international people and so what i tried to do was really kind of comprehensive overview of how we see the threat as well as what we are doing from a mission standpoint and the purpose of all that was really to establish kind of a starting point and a baseline. i don't intend to do that today but it's probably best if we get to your questions as quickly as possible but i'm certainly willing to either follow up with you here today or follow up later as to give you that background if that's something that would be helpful. like i said, i want to make a couple quick points then i will open it up for your questions. the first one is really i want to talk a little bit about our unilateral counterterrorism mission and i as i think you are well aware, the us forces

in afghanistan continues to have a mission to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al qaeda so we have the authority to target any al qaeda member. in january of course that authority or the authority for us forces in afghanistan to begin targeting isis was also provided so obviously in some areas the islamic state has a province and in kabul we look forward to ãso it's a context from 1 january until 31 march, us forces took just under 100 counterterrorism strikes.the majority of those between 70 and 80 focused on daesh and of those probably the majority again, 70 to 80 percent were probably focused in the night a hard area. what my hope is is that we move forward, is to be able to provide you more specifics and more details about that. what i want to be able to do is on a recurring basis, every couple of weeks give you

laydown of specifically how many strikes we took and when we took it but i also want to make sure what we are providing you is consistent with what you've seen from iraq and syria but there also is consistent with some of the aspects of our mission here that we do want to take into account so bottom line is we will give you more information about that and i do intend to improve that aspect of it. the other component on the characterization of the mission and this is not unilateral but it is really a partnership with the amd sf and as i think you're aware obviously we have a advise and assist mission where we do help the amd sf at multiple levels above specific to the ctc we are able to partner with them in a very tactical level and specifically with their special operations forces. so what we are able to do from a overall counterterrorism aspect is to be able to provide us unilateral fees as well as to train advise and assist in the example i would give is over a week or so ago there was

an operation in the district of cot in the night a heart and it was really about 36 hours operation, maybe a little less but what we were able to do is have us unilateral strikes against daesh targets and in the end the sf it specifically their thought capabilities were able to move in and essentially clear part of a valley and we do think that is a partnership as we move forward on all these counterterrorism operations. so to the next topic and i think it segues well, there's always a question of where are we from a status standpoint. quorum call:

mr. rubio:? madam president? the presiding officer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: i'm here today to talk about the zika virus which we've been hearing a lot about in the news lately. it's a virus that has first

begun to appear -- it's been going on for a long time but we've began to see it in the news lately with regard to brazil. there was been a lot of discussion about it. the president requested $1.9 billion to deal with this. there's a lot of tkeufrp things we need to -- different things we need to address it and there's been a squabble about whether or not we ought to be spending that much money on it. i said we ought to set aside money for the crisis in ebola. there was about $500 million of that that had been unspent. i argued before we go to the $1.9 billion there was $500 million available. let's assign that and the president agreed to do that. but there is still a shortfall on this issue and it does need to be addressed, and i hope we can find a way to address it. obviously my political differences with the policies of the white house are well known and established but this is an issue where i believe they'll be

supportive of this. we have to make sure the money is being spent on the right things. it is not just saying here's $1.9 billion to throw the money at zika. you have to make sure it is being spent on the virus. oftentimes in this place when the money is being spent on a catastrophe or disaster or breakout of a disease, suddenly you see all kinds of other ideas or programs attached to it with nothing to do with the primary reason for why the money is being spent. we want to make sure if there is $1.9 billion to be spent on this that all of it is spent on this. the second is we want to make sure the money is being spent on the right things. what are the right things? one of the most important things that needs to happen long term is the money necessary for the basic research to incentivize a vaccine. there is the belief that they can pretty quickly get to a vaccine that will protect people from this. so that's important.

i think there needs to be thought put into the testing. testing for the zika virus today is less than reliable. there is not a commercially available test. for example, in florida, if you want to be tested for zika, it has to be through the state department of health. you can't go down to the quest laboratory or one of the providers of lab tests and get it. there's not a commercially available test. so that has to be improved as well. and so these are the sorts of things that i hope the money will be geared towards and this is why it's so important. i don't want us to take our eye off of this because if this issue takes off on us here in the united states, we don't want to say that we knew it was happening but we ignored it and did nothing about it. so on monday of this week there was a reuters report where the u.s. officials warned that the zika virus is scarier than they initially thought. the virus is present in about 30 states. by the way, there are hundreds of thousands of infections that could appear in the territory of puerto rico. here's a quote from the deputy tkrerbt of -- director of the u.

centers for disease control. everything about this virus is scarier than we initially thought. while we hope we don't see widespread transmission in the continental united states, we need the state to be ready for that. end quote. from my understanding there is one case of transmission in the continental united states. that happens to be in polk county florida but there are dozens in the territory of puerto rico. the other thing they found is the mosquito species that primarily transmits the virus is 30 states rather than the 12 as previously thought. that too sends the fact that this could be a very serious issue that could find itself in places outside of the tropical climates we once thought this was limited to. on wednesday the centers for disease control -- this is the last wednesday, the c.d.c. said it is now clear that zika did he have any of thely causes severe birth directs. confirming the worst fears of many pregnant women in the

united states and latin america, u.s. health officials said wednesday there is no longer any doubt that the virus causes babies to be born with abnormally small heads and severe brain defects. this is something that now looking at what's happened in brazil and other parts of the country there is now a real concern about what this can mean for pregnant women and the ability to transmit that to their children or to their unborn child, and the effects of it are devastating. initially it was thought the stkaoeufrs -- zika virus is very dangerous if you contract it in the first semester but after that the risk is not as grave. but now there is a report it may affect babies in the later stages of pregnancy. the zika virus may pose a threat to women and fetuses in the later stages of pregnancy according to a study online in the british medical journal.

doctors initially suspected zika infections largely spread by mosquitoes would be most harmful to fetuses in the first trimess trimess -- trimester of pregnancy. in the study, however, 23% of the mothers of babies with microcephaly were infected with zika in the second trimester. two mothers were infected in the sixth month of pregnancy. none were infected in the third trimester. the babies tph-rt study -- in the study had problems that went beyond small heads. the brain damage was seen as -- quote -- "extreme lip severe indicating a poor prognosis according to the study." the authors of the report expanded the study to 130 babies. several had seizures within three to months after birth. the extent of the damage which was captured in m.r.i. images was stunning according to to a professor of pediatric neurology at the university of school of medicine.

this is a quote, a really remarkable degree of damage. babies with this condition have severe microcephaly, extra scalp skin, intellectual disabilities and prominent occipital bone located at the back of the head according to c.d.c. these fetal brain disruptions we talked about is extremely rare. a 2001 review in a medical journal identified only 20 cases according to the c.d.c., so this is something we're looking at that doesn't normally happen as a normal risk but it's clearly being exacerbated by the zika virus. in fact, in m.r.i. images published by the study one baby appears to have a very small, even nonexistent brain. judging by the damage on the m.r.i., the baby in that image is likely to have severe cognitive impairment and may be unable to learn to walk or talk. so that's why the same day i sent a letter to the centers for disease control and i sent a

letter to them regarding zika testing backlog. on april 8 i hosted a briefing in miami a week from yesterday with representatives from state health departments, local health department and county government officials and i included health officers from puerto rico. and i publicly at the time as i said offered my support for the president's emergency supplemental funding request. while i heard there were many obstacles that we face in fighting zika, one aspect i heard about repeatedly was the distressing length of time it takes for diagnostic tests to be completed. i have subsequently seen media reports of pregnant women who have waited up to a month for the c.d.c. to complete their diagnostic tests for the zika virus while fearful mothers anxiously await to know their child's fate. of course we're still waiting for the supplemental requests to be passed and i hope we can do that quickly. there really is no reason to wait on this, but until congress approves the request, i urge the centers for disease control to use whatever steps are necessary to dedicate currently available

resources to clearing its current backlog of zika diagnostic tests and to prioritize these tests for women who are pregnant. i believe these essential steps will help us not only to ease mothers' minds who test negative for the virus but also to provide critical care for a child whose mother tests positive for the zika virus. we know that screening for microen self-ly should happen early and often and receiving diagnostic tests is the first step in that process. the c.d.c. should have the ability to provide those services to those who are waiting. ultimately it's my hope that the food and drug administration will approve a commercial zika diagnostic test in the near future so that these tests are more broadly available. one more thing that i think was reported on wednesday was that the house g.o.p. is readying a zika funding plan. house leaders are working on approving more funding by the end of this year, and i would once again encourage them to do

so in light of the circumstances we now face. i'm not saying this isn't going to be an outbreak of great proportions but for a family that will be affected by this, this will be a crisis. i say it's important for these testing kits to be available by the way not just for mothers and potentially pregnant but also to men because we know the zika virus can be transmitted sexually as it was in the infection that occurred in polk county, florida. beyond it, i hope in this funding request that we don't wait until the end of the year. the summer months are coming, and this is the months where the spread of these mosquitoes -- the two strains of the two types of species of mosquitoes that carry the virus are going to become prevalent in many parts of the country. it's the time of year when many people find themselves outdoors exposed to these mosquitoes. so i hope that the funding requests can be in place and we don't wait until the end of the year to deal with it. it shouldn't take this long.

i believe in limited government but i do believe one of the obligations of a limited federal government is to protect our people from dangers, whether they be foreign enemies or the risk of disease outbreak. and so i hope that we will move forward on this endeavor because it's important. it's a proper function of government, and we shouldn't be sitting here six months from now regretting that we didn't act sooner. and i so i hope that we will move promptly and quickly both in the house and the senate to address this issue. i would want to close by saying i don't want to forget about puerto rico. oftentimes people forget that puerto rico is the united states. people who live there are u.s. citizens. and there is already a severe outbreak when it comes to puerto rico. they are already facing this crisis. and so it's important -- if this was one of the 50 states, they would have a senator here on the floor right now, maybe two, arguing on behalf of them. obviously, puerto rico doesn't have a senator elected from the island, so i hope to stand here today on their behalf to argue that this is an important issue

that needs to be addressed for the sake of our country but most immediately for the sake of the territory of puerto rico. and so i hope that we will move quickly to confront this issue and to solve it. and i would close by saying one more thing -- while government has an important role to play, ultimately we have a responsibility. if you are traveling to parts of this world where you might be exposed to the virus, i think you have an obligation to get tested to ensure that you're not going to be transmitting this to your partner. as i argued last week at my press conference, if you're going to be outdoors, you have an obligation i think to use mosquito repellent, to protect yourself and your family from being exposed to this, just the same way you would wear sunscreen. i think it's important for us this summer. by the way, it's not just zika that mosquitoes transmit. they transmit all kinds of other very serious illnesses. there is a level of personal responsibility here. we talked about people not allowing bodies of water, whether it's undrained pools or puddles of water in your back yard. these mosquitoes can grow and

water -- in water containers as small as the cap of a bottle of water. they don't need a lot of water in order to reproduce and grow. so there are things we need to do in our own lives to take personal responsibility for dealing with the zika virus. but there is a proper role for government, and i hope that we will play it. we have an obligation to hold the government responsible to ensure that the money that is appropriated is just being spent on zika and is being spent appropriately on things that work. we should be working with our local and state partners to ensure that we are funding the programs that work and that need to be funded. but i think we need to get it done, and i hope that we can get it done here really quickly because the summer is upon us, and i don't think we want to be halfway through the summer and wake up to the news that hundreds and hundreds of americans in multiple states have been infected and we did nothing. we'll have to explain that to our constituents. and i'm not sure we're going to have a good explanation if we don't act. with that, madam president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, i rise to speak about h-1b visas,

often called the high-skilled immigration visa. every year, the u.s. government issues 85,000 new h-1b visas, including 20,000 for workers with advanced degrees. this is in addition to hundreds of thousands of foreign workers already in the u.s. on h-1b visas. beginning on april 1, employers can submit petitions for new h-1b visas. every year, within a few days, the government announces it's received many more petitions for visas than the number of visas available. the government then conducts a random lottery to decide which employers will receive the visas. every year, this leads to a hue and cry from our business community about the need to increase the annual cap for h-1b visas. like clock work, this process played out last week, just as it does every year. let's take a look at what happened. when most people think of h-1b visas, they think of big tech companies, microsoft, google,

apple hiring top-notch computer engineers, paying them top dollars to come in from overseas. but here's the reality. in fact, the top recipients of h-1b visas are important companies that use loopholes in the law to displace qualified american workers and send american jobs offshore. in 2013, outsourcing firms receive more than 50% of the annual h-1b visa cap. think about that. over half of these h-1b visas designed to bring skilled foreign workers in the united states, over half of them are being given to foreign companies. sounds wrong, doesn't it? in 2014, 15 of the top 20 h-1b employers used the h-1b visa primarily to offshore american jobs. that is, to take americans, put

them out of work and have foreign workers take their jobs. these 15 firms gobbled up over 190,000 new h-1b visas over ten years. here's how it works. foreign outsourcing companies import thousands of foreign guest workers using h-1b visas. these companies then cut deals with american companies to outsource american jobs, to move them offshore. the u.s. -- to keep them in the united states with these foreign workers. the u.s. companies give their american workers notice that they will be fired, but before the american workers can be laid off, listen to this, the american workers are forced to train the foreign guest workers who are going to take over their jobs. after they are trained, the outsourcing company returns the foreign workers to their home country where, guess what, they compete with the united states. most of these foreign outsourcing companies are from

india -- infosys, tata, wypro. you may not recognize those names, but they are making billions of dollars using the h-1b visa to outsource american jobs and displace american workers. a high-ranking indian government official even called the h-1b visa the outsourcing visa. so the international herald tribune investigated these indian companies, and here's what they concluded, and i quota thriving community of experts and innovators in the united states, the indian firms seek to funnel work and expertise away from the country." now, congress intended the hs-b program for the congress to hire a skilled worker when the american employer couldn't find an american worker with those skills and a little. we didn't create this program for foreign outsourcing firms to

exploit the program and to bring foreign workers to our country to be trained and talented american workers see their jobs shipped away. so let's take an example. in the last year alone, media reports have documented the replacement of hundreds of american workers by these foreign outsourcing companies. let me give you an example close to home. abbott labs of illinois. headquartered near chicago. signed a contract for information technology services with wypro, one of the largest foreign outsourcing companies based in india and one of the top users of the h-1b visa program. here's how it worked. approximately 150 united states employees at abbott labs in illinois are going to lose their jobs. the workers who are being laid off have stellar experience. many of them have been at abbott

for years. they have the credentials, the performance reviews and some have really amazing work records for decades at abbott labs. i know from recent conversations with abbott labs' employees that this layoff has taken its toll on the morale of their remaining work force. so when i heard about these plans, i wrote to myles white, the c.e.o. of abbott labs. i urged him to reconsider this plan and to keep his american workers who've really worked so hard for abbott labs for years. well, i'm sorry to report that he responded to my letter and confirmed his company's plans to terminate these american worke workers. i'm very concerned about abbott labs because they've required the employees who are losing their jobs and being laid off to sign away their right to sue or even disparage the company if they want to receive any severance pay. as a result of this agreement, congress and the american people

are unable to hear directly from the employees who are affected by this decision at abbott labs. employees who are losing their jobs to wypro, an indian company that specializes in outsourcing american jobs. abbott employees have told my staff they were concerned that even if they spoke with our office about what was happening at abbott labs, they could be sued. other companies that have signed contractors with foreign outsourcing companies to replace american workers have also forced their employees to sign these nondisparagement agreements. so we're in the dark about the human impact of these outsourcing arrangements on the americans who are losing their jobs. what we know is this. 150 skilled and experienced american workers will lose their jobs, have to sign an agreement that they will not say anything negative about their current employer, and, get this, train the people who are going to take

their places. if they don't comply with that, they don't get their severance pay. i sent a follow-up letter to mr. white today about the gag order he's forced on his employees. we should be able to hear firsthand from these workers who are losing their jobs because of outsourcing just exactly what's happening to them. senator chuck grassley and i first introduced bipartisan legislation to reform the h-1b visa program in 2007, almost a decade ago. our bill would end these abuses and protect american and foreign workers from exploitation. the outsourcing companies are worried about our legislation. for a long time, chuck grassley and dick durbin were on the front page of a lot of indian newspapers. listen to the corporate jargon that wypro uses to talk about our bill. quote -- "with the growth of offshore outsourcing receiving increasing political and media attention, there have been concerted efforts to enact new legislation to restrict offshore

outsourcing. this may adversely impact our ability," says ywpro, "to do business in these jurisdictions and could adversely affect our revenues and operating profitability." so let me be clear. my first obligation as a u.s. senator is to protect american workers. if that adversely affects the profits of a foreign company that specializes in outsourcing american jobs, so be it. in 2013, i joined the gang of eight, democrats and republica republicans, we put together a comprehensive immigration reform bill. the corporate interests fought so hard to protect these h-1b visas. but we successfully included in the bill several important changes to the program. let me give you an example. under current law, employers are permitted to pay h-1b visa holders substandard wages which creates an incentive to fire americans and hire foreign workers. the vice president of tatta out

of india, one of the leading foreign outsourcing firms, candidly acknowledged that they use h-1b visas to undercut american workers. here's what he said. "our wage per employee is 20% to 25% less than u.s. wages for a similar employee. the issue is that of getting workers in the u.s. on wages far lower than local wages." he was pretty candid about it. the object is to put americans out of work and to charge less than what the americans are being paid. so i wrote a provision in the 2013 comprehensive immigration reform bill that discouraged employers from hiring foreign workers as a source of cheap labor by doubling the minimum wage of h-1b employees. and employers of large number of h-1b visa holders would have been required to pay at a minimum the average wage paid to an american. that's why the chief executive of ta it a in india said our bill would have been -- quote --

"very tough on outsourcing companies." so be it. the senate passed that bill on this floor 68-32. unfortunately the republican leadership in the house of representatives refused to even call the bill. they wouldn't debate it or call it for a vote. now the two leading republican presidential candidates, donald trump and the junior senator from texas, have jumped on the bandwagon. they want to reform the h-1b program. but unfortunately their track records call into question their real commitment. mr. tum trump owns companies tht have sought to import at least 1,000 temporary guest workers while turning away hundreds of american workers. and in 2013, when the judiciary committee considered the comprehensive immigration reform bill, senator cruz of texas offered an amendment to increase annual cap for h-1b visas to

325,000 per year, almost four times the current number. nonetheless, if they've changed their mind out on the campaign trail, we welcome that change of heart and welcome them to this debate. we must reform the h-1b visa program and fix other parts of our broken immigration system to protect american and immigrant workers. the solution is still comprehensive immigration refo reform. the time for action's now. congress has avoided its responsibility for far too long. madam president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. a senator: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: madam president, i'd like to spend a few minutes talking about our allies across the globe. and i'm doing so because they're important to our national security. mr. sullivan: that seems to be an obvious statement. but our allies seem to be getting a bit of a bipartisan

short shrift of late. so i wanted to come to the floor of the u.s. senate and talk about how important they are. to our nation, to our citizens. and it's bipartisan, as i mentioned. as many of us have read on the campaign trail, presidential candidate donald trump has been critical of nato, has been critical of our asia pacific allies. meanwhile in many ways hasn't gotten the news it deserves because it's a sitting president, but in a recent article in the atlantic by jeffrey goldberg entitled "the obama doctrine ," president obama himself is dismissive of many of our allies around the world. so i thought it was important to come down and talk a little bit about our allies, how important they are to u.s. security and to

expanding american influence globally. so let's start with mr. trump. he's called nato, which by the way happens to be one of the most successful alliances in the history of the world, he calls it an alliance that's -- quote -- "obsolete and too expensive." about the members of the 28-nation alliance he said -- quote -- "are they pay up, including for past deficiencies or they have to get out." and if it breaks up nato, it breaks up nato." oh well. so much for the world's most successful alliance. however, contrary to public perception, the u.s. does not pay for a majority of nato

spending. we pay about only 22% ever nato's common funded budgets and programs for all of nato, about 22%. the secretary of general of na nato, jen stoltenberg was here last week and he informed me and many of my colleagues on the senate armed services committee that most nato countries have stopped their decline in defense spending and have recommitted to nato's goal of 2% of g.d.p. towards defense spending. so that's important. working on the finances, reversing this trend, but here's the key point, madam president. it's not just about finances. over 1,000 non-u.s. nato troops have been killed in action in afghanistan coming to our

defense after nine, to go after -- after 9/11, to go after the terrorists who killed over 3,000 americans on 9/11. over a thousand of our nato allies have paid the ultimate price. you can't put a price tag on that. and thousands and thousands of more have been wounded. madam president, some sacrifices can't be measured in just dollars. now based on his comments, mr. trump also does not seem to fully comprehend how the presence of american troops in the asia pacific has been the linchpin of security and prosperity in the region for more than 70 years. and today our allies in the asia pacific are substantially increasing their financial and

military commitments in that region. let me give you a few examples. under the prime minister's leadership, japan has amended its constitution to do much more militarily in terms of being able to work with us and even defend u.s. forces in the regi region, and as we are looking to rebalance and reposition u.s. forces in the asia pacific over the next several years, the estimates from pacific command, that's going to cost about $37 billion. repositioning u.s. forces in the asia pacific, very important part of our strategy, a strategy, by the way, that the president talks about the rebalance which i think is smart in the asia pacific. of that $37illion for our forces in the military construction that's going to take place with this rebalance,

about $30 billion, $30 billion will be paid by japan and korea. that's certainly paying their way. let me give you a couple of examples. camp humphries, that's a military base, army base in korea. we're moving a lot of forces there, doing a lot of military construction there. it's going to cost about $11 billion. 91% of that is going to be paid by korea. for u.s. military forces. and in guam, u.s. territory, where we are repositioning marines and other critical military assets in the asia pacific, japan is paying $3 billion for that repositioning on u.s. territory. first time ever. a foreign country paying for military construction on our

territory. so bottom line, madam president, there's no doubt that our allies around the world, particularly in europe, need to do more in terms of defense spending. many people have spoken on this. former secretary gates, very well respected, he raises this in his recent bio. but it's simply erroneous to suggest that america would be better off without nato or without our asia pacific allies and alliances. yes, they need to spend more, but there's a big difference saying we don't need our allies. so let me say that we should all understand that mr. trump, donald trump, he's a candidate. he's certainly not an expert on national security affairs. and his views certainly reflect the frustrations of many

americans, many members of congress about allies not spending much on defense. of course we know this offense happens during elections. we've seen that. it's out of frustrations. but what is unprecedented is for a sitting president to be dismissive and even disdainful of our most iortant allies in a publication read by millions. to do so is not only unpresidential, it threatens to undermine ongoing u.s. national security interests. so i want to talk a little bit about that atlantic article that i mentioned earlier. written by jeffrey goldberg. mr. goldberg who had enormous access with the president for i think well over a year, traveled with him, air force one, all over, numerous interviews, he takes us, jeffrey goldberg in his article, on a trip across the globe. through the eyes of president obama. and i would encourage all of my

colleagues in this body to read that article. as i mentioned, mr. goldberg has significant access to the president, but the tour across the world leaves us no doubt that the president not only views himself as the smartest man in the room, he's the smartest man in the world. and mr. goldberg -- in mr. goldberg's words, president obama -- quote -- "has found world leadership wanting. global partners who often lack the vision and the will to spend political capital and purr -- in pursuit of broad progressive goals and adversaries who are not in his mind as rational as we are." the president assesses the various strengths and weaknesses of our allies, and in his view only german chancellor angela merkel measures up.

there's a whole list of leaders from countries that are allies of the united states that are mentioned in this article. the president calls the president of a critical nato country a -- quote -- "failure" and he he is openly disaapproving of the leadership of britain and france and openly complaining that neither did their part with regard to libya, where the obama administration famfamously -- or infamously announced that it was leading from behind. the jabs and the stories in the goldberg piece that other leaders -- at other leaders like the leaders of jordan and israel and saudi arabia are gratuitous. now, madam president, these might be appropriate for later in the president's memoirs, as he's talking about world