times of tight budget when america, its taxpayers and certainly the men and women in uniform need every dollar that we can save them, you can't explain or defend the position taken by the committee. the disagreement is over how to best get the united states off defense of russian-made rocket engines for the launching of national security payloads into space. the proposal coming out of the committee and from the chairman last year and again this year continues to suggest a rash and abrupt halt to the purchase of these russian-made engines. let me make it clear. i want to move away from these russian-made engines quickly. i want american engines built by americans to propel these payloads into space. but it takes time. for two years we have been appropriating money to achieve this goal. it'll take two or three more years at least to reach that goal of having an american-made engine. this chairman of this committee ignores that reality and says we will just stop when it comes

this these russian engines and take the consequences. well, the consequences sadly are going to be an extraordinary expense for american taxpayers. as chairman and now vice-chairman of the defense appropriations subcommittee, i'm committing to american-made engine. we've ppropriated more funds for this effort than even this authorizing committee has authorized over the last several years. and the air force is using these funds to liberate us from russian-made rockets as quickly as possible. but secretary carter, director clapper, and secretary james have all testified publicly that the proposal from the senior senator from arizona is dangerous to national security and costly. secretary carter testifying in front of the defense appropriations subcommittee may 6, 2015, said, "we want to get off that dependency on russia, but it takes some time to do so. and in the meantime, we want afford to have a gap because we need to be able to launch

national security satellites." air force secretary james testified in front of the senior senator's own committee that we're now considering the bill from making the same case, noting that the chairman's proposal -- quote -- "would add anywhere from $1.5 billion to $5 billion in additional cost." now, that's a lot of moafnlt i've heard the chairman of this committee come to this floor over and over and over again suggesting wasteful spending. his proposal when it comes to rocket engines according to the secretary of the air force will end up costing us $1.5 billion to $5 billion more than we should have to pay for this important part of our national defense. that is a waste of taxpayers' dollars. i hope my colleagues will pay attention to this issue and i hope we have time to debate it in detail. there's simply too much at stake for our national security, for our troorntion and for the -- for our troops, and for the spes to and for the taxpayers. this is a lengthy bill, as i

mentioned. there will be additional measures as we uncover it page by page and -- we'll take the time to actually do so. in the meantime, i want to thank the chairman and ranking member for their work to present this body with their product. i look forward to a meaningful debate on the many issues this authorization bill prevents. i yield the floor. -- presents. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: mr. president, president obama will make an historic visit to hiroshima, the sight of the first atomic bombing. he will become the first sitting president of the united states to do so, and i commend him for this long overdue presidential recognition. having traveled to hiroshima in 1985 to witness the

commemoration of the 40th anniversary of that atomic bombing, i know from personal experience that any visit there serves as a powerful reminder of america's responsibility to reduce the risk of nuclear war. that risk remains as real today as it was nearly 71 years ago when we dropped that bomb that killed 140,000 people. -- in one day. in the last few decades, important progress has been made to reduce the threat of nuclear war. the united states and russia have reduced the size of their nuclear arsenals and the beginning of an additional change is going to happen in 2018 when both the united states and russia will have no more than 1,550 deployed strategic warheads after implementation of

the new start treaty. but that progress has come at a cost. in exchange for the support of senate republicans for passage of the new start treaty in 2010, president obama promised to fund major upgrades to america's nuclear arsenal. since then, the extent of these upgrades and their costs has swelled. today it is estimated that president obama's nuclear modernization plan will end up costing u.s. taxpayers nearly $1 trillion over the next 30 years. however, this -- quote, unquote -- "moderation plan" is little more than a plan to expand america's capabilities, its nuclear capabilities. it would create new nuclear weapons, including a dangerous nuclear air launch cruise missile that will cost tens of

billions of dollars over the next two decades. nuclear cruise missiles are of particular concern because they are difficult to distinguish from nonnuclear cruise missiles. as a consequence, if the united states used a conventional cruise missile in a conflict with russia or china, it would lead to devastating miscalculation on the other side and, as a result, to accidental nuclear war. worse still, the defense department has justified this new nuclear cruise missile by asserting that it is needed for purposes beyond deterrence. the pentagon explains that the new nuclear cruise missile could be used to respond -- quote -- "proportionately to a limited nuclear attack," meaning that this weapon, this nuclear

weapon, becomes useable -- more useable in a standoff with russia or china or some other country. when president obama visited prague in 2009, he pledged to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security. if the president wants to truly make good on this promise, i think it's important for him to stop these nuclear expansion efforts. he should cancel the funding for the new nuclear cruise missile, which would make the prospect of fighting a nuclear war more imaginable. in the meantime, congress can and must act, rather than plunging blindly ahead by spending money on this dangerous new weapon, we can call for a timeout while we evaluate its cost and for its risks. and that is why i have introduced an amendment to the

national defense authorization act that would delay any spending on the nuclear cruise missile for one year, so that we can have the full debate on this weapon, so that we can ensure that we understand the consequences of building this new weapon, so that we can understand how the russians and the chinese might respond to it, so that each member of the senate can understand that it in fact has nuclear war-fighting capabilities. it's not just a defensive weapon; it has the ability to be used in a nuclear war-fighting scenario. how do i know this? it's because this pentagon, this department of defense says that it is useable, says that it can be used in a limited nuclear war. do we really want to be authorizing here in this senate

that kind of new weapon, the kind of weapon that makes fighting a nuclear war more imaginable? i think that americans deserve an opportunity to consider whether tens of billions of dollars of their tax dollars should be spent on a redundant and destabilizing new nuclear missile, and they expect that we will ask the tough questions about the need for $1 trillion in new nuclear weapon spending, but they especially want us to ask questions about new weapons that the pentagon is saying makes it possible to contemplate a limited nuclear war. that is a debate which this body needs to have. that's a weapon system that we should be discussing. this is the tip of the new $1

trillion nuclear modernization program, this new cruise missile with nuclear warheads. we should debate that first. we can examine the rest of the modernization program, the other new nuclear programs, but we should at least have that debate, that vote out here, and we should give ourselves at least one year before we allow it to commence so that we can study it. then next year we can have the vote on whether or not we want to commence. but i don't think we, as yet, have had the debate, have a full understanding of what the implications of this weapon are. plans to build more nuclear weapons would not only be expensive, but they could trigger a21st century arms race with russia and china who

are unlikely, very unlikely, to stand idly by as we expand our nuclear arsenal. the as a result would be a -- the result would be a tragic return to the days of the cold war when both sides built up ever-greater stockpiles of nuclear weapons. as we got closer and closer to the contemplation that both sides could actually consider fighting a nuclear war. our goal should be to push us further and further and further away from the concept that it's possible to fight a nuclear limited war on this planet. the national defense authorization act also contains another misguided provision that would lay the groundwork for a spiraling nuclear weapons buildup. currently, our policy -- the united states policy states that

we will pursue a -- quote -- "limited missile defense" -- limited. this approach is meant to protect our territory against missile attacks by countries such as iran and north korea, without threatening russia or china's -- russia's or china's nuclear deterrence. as recognized by generations of responsible policy-makers, constructing missile defenses aimed at russia or china would be self-defeating and destabilizing, dramatically expanding our missile defenses could cause russia and china to fear that the united states seeks to protect ourselves from retaliation from russia or china so that we can carry out a preventive nuclear attack on china or on russia. that plays into the most militariries stick people inside of those countries who will then say that they, too, need to make

additional investments. and that cycle of offense and defense continues to escalate until you reach a point where we are back to where we all started, with those generals, with those arms contractors then dictating what our foreign policy is, what our defense policy is, and they were wrong in the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's, 1980's, and they are wrong today. that is just the wrong way toasmght we have to ensure that we are back in a way -- backing away, not increasing the likelihood that these weapons can be used. we don't want to be empowering those in our own country, either at the pentagon or the arms contractors, because they will have the same people in the kremlin and their arms contractors that will be hubbing their hand saying -- rubbing their hands saying, great, let's

build all of these new weapons, both offensive and defensive. they would love this. that's why we have to have the debate out here on the senate floor. this generation of americans deserves to know what its government is planning in terms of nuclear war-fighting strategy. that is what a limited war is all about. that is what this new cruise missile with a nuclear bomb on it that's more accurate, more powerful, more likely to be used in a nuclear war is all about. that's why the pentagon wants it. that's why the arms contractors want to make it. but it's just a return to the earlier era where every one of these new nuclear weapons systems that were -- had blueprints, were on the table over at the pentagon, or over on the defense contractors got the

green light: build it. and what happened? every single time, the soviet union said, we're building the exact same kind of counterpower system of was that bringing us closer closer or further away from a nuclear war? which was the correct direction for our quun to be headed? thank god we began to talk at reykjavik, president reagan and president gorbachev. thank god we now have a new start treaty. but as part of the new start treaty, there was a faustian deal and that faustian deal was that we're going to build a new generation of usable war-fighting nuclear weapons in our own country. and that faustian deal is one that will then be lived with with this next generation of americans and citizens of this

planet. so we need to ensure that we can have this debate. the fears that i think are going to be engendered into the minds of those in china and russia would result in a new dangerous nuclear competition that would have our new defenses be responded to by them building new additional nuclear weapons and by putting them on high alert because you would have to put them on high alert if you were in russia or china if you thought that we had a defensive system that could knock them down if our planning included attacking them. and we don't want either country to be on high alert for a nuclear war. up don't want that -- you don't want that. that's where we were in the 1980's.

that's where we were in the 1970's, both sides with their fingers on the button. it's unnecessary, it's dangerous, it's a repetition of history and it's something we should be debating out here. it can't be something that's casually added without a full appreciation in our country for what the consequences are going to be long term. so we've got an incredible opportunity. it's timely. the president is visiting here shaoepl -- hiroshima. it should weigh on the consciouses of everyone that we have the responsibility of decreasing and not increasing the likelihood of a nuclear war. i filed an amendment to strike the provision from the ndaa. i urge all of my colleagues to support it. i think that that second

amendment is also one that deserves a full debate out here on the senate floor. if we want other countries to reduce their nuclear arsenals and restrain their nuclear war plans, the united states must take the lead instead of wasting billions of dollars on dangerous new nuclear weapons that do nothing to keep our nation safe. president obama should scale back his nuclear weapons build-up. instead of provoking russia and china with expanding missile defenses that will ultimately fail, we should work towards a new arms control agreement. as president obama said in prague in 2009, let us honor our past by reaching for a better future. a lesson of the past and a lesson of hiroshima is clear. nuclear weapons must never be used again on this planet. president obama did an excellent

job in reaching a nuclear arms control agreement with iran. that was important. because if iran was right now on its way to the development of a nuclear weapon, there's no question that saudi arabia and other countries in that region would also be pursuing a nuclear weapon. and we would then have a world where people were not listening to each other, people were threatening each other with annihilation, with total destruction. and here's where we are. we're either going to live together or we're going to die together. we're either going to know each other or we're going to exterminate each other. the final choice that we all have, if that point in the future is reached and those missiles are starting to be launched that have nuclear

warheads on board, the least that we should be able to say is that we tried, we really tried to avoid that day. that's our challenge here on the senate floor. to have this debate, to give ourselves the next year to have this question raised as to whether or not we want to engage in a cold war-like escalation of new offensive and new defensive nuclear weapons to be constructed in our country for sure than triggering the same response in russia and china. and, by the way, for sure saying to pakistan, to india, to iran, to saudi arabia, to any other country that harbors their own secret military desire to have these weapons, that they should not listen to the united states because we are preaching temperance, nuclear temperance from a bar stool.

we are not in fact abiding by what we say that the rest of the world should do. so we should be debating it right now. we should have this challenge presented to us to have the words be spoken as to what the goals are for these weapons. if the defense department says to us this year that this leads to a capacity to use nuclear weapons in a limited nuclear war, and they're saying that to us in the last six months, do we really want to have these weapons then constructed in our country? is that really what we want to have as our legacy? and, mr. president, i'd also like to spend a couple of minutes talking about another issue which is a relic from the cold war era, and that is tsca.

the legislation that deals with toxic chemicals within our country. there was a law passed 40 years ago to deal with toxic chemicals in our country, but ultimately that law never worked. when you look back, it's like a political, environmental edsal still sitting in the garage 40 years later not useful to protect american families from the chemicals in our society: asbestos, hundreds and thousands of others; just not useful. congress stands ready right now, thank god, to reform the last of the -- quote -- "core four environmental statutes that has yet to be modernized." and i hope we will do so with a stronger bipartisan vote than

any major environmental statute in recent american history and that we do so soon. this historic vote to comprehensively reform the toxic substances control act comes after years of hard work by many senators on both sides of the aisle. we worked for some months to reconcile the two bills, and all of us were driven by the same reason. since it was written four decades ago, tsca has sat there untouched. it is a statute that simply does not work to protect anyone because ever since industry successfully challenged e.p.a.'s proposed asbestos ban, e.p.a. has not been able to effectively use the authority congress intended it to have. in conference, we truly did take the best of both bills. we made sure e.p.a. will have industry fees to do its chemical

safety work. we made sure that there will be enforceable deadlines for e.p.a. to write chemical safety rules and for industry to comply with them. we fix the legal problems in the law that caused the asbestos ban to be overturned and that paralyzed e.p.a. and prevented them from regulating some extremely toxic chemicals. we ensured that when e.p.a. studies a chemical that it considers only the environmental or health effects of that chemical and only considers the potential cost of regulation when it is writing a rule to regulate it. we made sure that e.p.a. would act more quickly to regulate the most dangerous chemicals and that vulnerable subpopulations like children and pregnant women and workers would be protected. we made sure that the industry could not continue to improperly keep information about dangerous chemicals secret any longer.

and in some of the last negotiations that i helped to lead, we made sure that states could continue with the work that they are already doing to protect their residents. and i'm particularly proud that i was able to protect massachusetts pending flame retardant law in these last few key changes that were agreed to in the bill in the last few days. the fact that we have a bill that has the humane society and the chamber of commerce both urging a "yes" vote tells you something. the fact that the bill is supported by the e.p.a., the chemical industry, many environmental stakeholders and the trial lawyers tells you something about this bill. this is like a political haley's comet. when you have jim inhofe and david vitter agreeing with ed markey on a piece of legislation, you should take note of that moment in the

history of passing legislation. that's where we are. we have something that's historic. the environmental bill of a generation is about to pass. the fact that 403 members of the house of representatives voted "yes" -- 403 voted in support of this bill tells you something. it tells you that we rolled up our sleeves, we worked together on a bipartisan, bicameral basis to compromise in the way that americans expect us to. i thank all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the capitol and look forward to watching the president sign this important legislation to protect the health and well-being of all americans. this is a bill that does protect us from the dangers which americans are exposed to whether they're democrat or republican, liberal or conservative. this is the way the chamber

should operate. this is the way we should also consider nuclear war-fighting policy. we should have the same kind of attention, the same kind of respect for the consequences for generations to come in our country. we should give it the same kind of respectful bipartisan, bicameral attention that the public can understand. i thank you, mr. president, for this opportunity, and with that i yield back the balance of my time and i doubt the presence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk should call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. a senator: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to continue my tribute -- the presiding officer: excuse me. the senate is in a quorum call. a senator: thank you, mr. president. i would ask that the quorum call be vitiated, please. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: thank you. mr. president, i rise today to continue my tribute to nebraska's heroes and the current generation of men and

women who lost their lives defending our freedom in iraq and afghanistan. mrs. fischer: each of these nebraskans has a special story to tell. today i will share the story on the life of marine corporal adrian robols of scotts bluff, nebraska. adrian was known throughout scotts bluff for his big smile. his older sister, beatrice remembers it this way. as soon as he smiled, even if you were mad at him, you would stop and have to smile. behind that big smile, though, was a tough young man. more than anything, adrian wanted to be a marine. this longing to serve his country was a point of pride and tradition in adrian's family. his grandfather, pedro torres served as a fighter pilot in world war ii. pedro's stories of service and

adventure inspired adrian's quest to become a marine and their bond was a source of joy throughout the family. as adrian's father caesar recalls, he loved his grandpa so much. he was a hero to him. when he was 16, adrian approached his parents and told them that he wanted to be a marine. he didn't want to wait. he even prepared a waiver for them to sign which would have allowed adrian to join the corps when he turned 17. while they admired the passion in their young son, adrian's parents stood firm. they wanted adrian to focus on completing his high school education. deterred but not discouraged, adrian decided to join the high school soccer team. soccer became an outlet for him, not only as an athlete but as a way to train and get in shape for the marines.

adrian graduated from scottsbluff high school in may of 2005. as expected he immediately enlisted in the marine corps. in the year that followed, adrian completed basic training and served a full tour in iraq by the end of 2007. his determination impressed his fellow marines. begunry sergeant trent coolhoff served with adrian during a tour in iraq. adrian was the kind of person who naturally bonded with everyone. as sergeant coolhoff remembers, it was hard for me to get mad at him for anything. adrian had discovered his calling. he worked toward excellence and he loved being a marine. a marksman is at the centerpiece of every marine combat team, and adrian was a good one.

by the age of 21 he had earned three good conduct medals, a rare feat in the military. in the spring of 2008, corporal adrian robles deployed to afghanistan as part of the second battalion first marine division. their mission was to train local afghan military forces, but by the fall this changed to a security mission as tensions rose in the dangerous territory of hil helman province. in 2008 adrian was on patrol when suddenly his vehicle was hit by an improvised explosive device. corporal robles was killed instantly. his unit was scheduled to leave afghanistan two months later. on november 2, 2008, hundreds of friends and neighbors from

scottsbluff lined the streets from the church to the cemetery. an honor guard and a horse and carriage team transported the casket to its final resting place. in a career of three short years, corporal robles earned three good conduct medals, two sea service deployment ribbons, the afghanistan campaign medal, the iraq campaign med cal, the global war on terrorism service medal, the national defense service medal, and the purple heart. adrian's mother yolanda recalls that his life's passion was to serve his country. she notes that he hated war and he knew the dangers, but he loved being a marine. a brave, disciplined and joyful young man, adrian lived a short life but his imprint is felt by

the countless people who knew and loved him. perhaps his devotion is summed up best by the tattoo on his left arm which read "your freedom, my life without complaint." adrian embodied the strength and determination that nebraskans are known for all over the wor world. he lived passionately and he earned his dream of being a united states marine. corporal adrian robles is a hero and i'm honored to tell his story. thank you, mr. president.

a senator: i ask that the proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: thank you, madam president. ms. murkowski: we are beginning a week period of opportunity to go back to our home states or for some traveling to further locales, but i am blessed. i'm fortunate because i'm going to be heading to hanes, alaska, tomorrow. this is a magnificent community

and truly a magnificent state. but when i arrive tomorrow evening in hanes, something will be a miss. something will be missing and that is the absence of two of hanes most prominent citizens, john and irma shnobble. john passed at the age of 96 years old. his wife irma, 65 years old passed shortly thereafter at the age of 87. john was regarded by his family and the people of hanes as a living legend. if you don't believe that that's true or you say all of us have living legends in our community, well, "people" magazine mentioned that in john's obituary. john was not just a local legend. he was known the world over as grandpa. he was the patriarch of the discovery channel series "alaska

gold rush." but to us alaskans he was simply one of the many exceptional people who -- people who populate our exceptional state. he was the son after wheat farmer. his father first moved to alaska to seek a better way of life away from the depression and then john reunited with his father in 1939 when he moved up to haines. he served in the navy during world war ii. he was a proud member of the american legion. returning to haines, john entered the timber business. he owned a lumber mill there in town, and he was really one of the region's first industrialists, if you will. he was involved in everything. he operated a hotel, a lumberyard, a hardware store. he built four downtown commercial buildings. he was one of haines' largest land owners but changing political attitudes toward timber harvest in southeast alaska and the regulations that

followed put john out of the timber business. but that wasn't going to keep john down. he plaster mined for fun and invested in small businesses. he was the mayor of haines. he was an outstanding bridge player. he was an avid reader. i understand that the biography of harry truman was one of his favorites, even though he was an avid republican, but it was only after john was recuperating from heart surgery that he entered the mining business in a big way. so think about it. most people rehabilitate from a triple bypass surgery by doing more walking or perhaps going to the gym. john shnobble decided he was going to work a mine and he worked the mine to remain active. he said it was doctor's orders. he did this until about -- just two years ago. so effectively until the time he was 94 he's working the mine.

the discovery channel folks wandered by. they found john an interesting man. by 2010 grandpa was a global celebrity, a reluctant celebrity but a celebrity nonetheless. the star of a reality tv show that ran for six seasons before he passed away. john was a family friend. john and irma were friends of mine. i respected john's business a acumen and his political relationship but i appreciated the relationshi relationship joa had and their five kids. the last time i visited with john and irma was two years ago in august. i was there at the haines assisted living center and i came in and visited with john and john was talking politics with me and anybody else that was listening, chatting around

the room. and then he left to go sit in the corner of the dining area there. sat next to irma. didn't say anything for probably half an hour, 45 minutes, just sat quietly with her holding her hand. after 66 years of marriage, that really moved me when i saw them. john had always been the builder. irma was known as the career. she took care of the family. they took care of the community. they're both gone from haines but they are certainly together in heaven. alaska is clearly better for their contributions and i know that i will certainly be thinking of them when i visit haines tomorrow. mr. president, many of us will be back in our home states and

focused on paying tribute and remembering those who have served. there are two days every year when this nation focuses special attention on those who have served, memorial day coming up this weekend as well as veterans day. and i plan to approach this memorial day much as the others by expressing gratitude to those who have served in honoring the memory of those who have sacrificed their lives for our freedom. when you serve in the military, supporting your buddy is everything. so as we honor the member reconcile of those lost in action, we know that they would want us also to care for their buddies. advances in military medicine since the vietnam war have made it possible for many to survive the wounds of war that they would not have otherwise been able to do in earlier conflicts.

but these veterans still do not return as they left, and many more return to the scourge of post-traumatic stress disorders. now, i would like to be able to tell the veterans of alaska that their federal government is doing right by them, but when it comes to the matter of health care -- and particularly the failings that we see of the choice program -- i can't in good conscience tell them that things are better in alaska. now, it's been a while since i have been to the floor to speak, i think, in relatively bleak terms about the care that our veterans receive in alaska because for some while things had been improving. they had been improving for much of the last eight years, but now it seems as if this pendulum is swinging the other way. when i came to the senate 13

years ago, alaska veterans who lived someplace other than the metropolitan area of anchorage or fairbanks or the kenai peninsula, they really didn't -- if you lived outside of those areas, you really didn't think about the v.a. health care. those who lived in those four communities, they were able -- they were able to gain their care. it worked for them. but if you didn't live where the v.a. lived and you weren't eligible for beneficiary travel, the v.a. just didn't mean much to you. it wasn't as if it was going to be anything that was going to help any of our vets. that was the status quo, and it really didn't show much sign of changing. but alaskaians really began to challenge the status quo during the second gulf war. ""operation iraqi freedom"" resulted in a large-scale

deployment of our alaska national guard members from throughout the state. at one point there were about 89 different alaska communities that were represented in the middle east, and it was fully pearpts that when -- apparent that when these men and women returned home, when these heroes returned home and they were released from active duty, the v.a. was really not prepared to meet their needs. so v.a. secretary nicholson came to anchorage in 2006. he heard this loud and clear from alaska's veteran service organizations, and it really created a groundswell to turn the alaska v.a. into a more veteran-centric direction, and it wasn't easy. it wasn't easy. there is a familiar slogan out there that says, it doesn't in matter who wins an election.

the bureaucracy also wins. and that was kind of a way of life in the alaska v.a. health care system. but we developed a pretty strong ally when secretary shinseki came on board. during his tenure as secretary, we saw three significant changes from the status quo. first thing that happened was the v.a. began contracting with alaska's tribal health care providers to care for our veterans, both our native veterans and our nonnative, who lived outside the reach of any v.a. facilities. so if you're a veteran living in bethel, doesn't make any difference whether you're native or nonnative, you could receive care through the tribal health care providers. and they were compensated by the v.a. at the same rate that the indian health service pays them. so the second thing we saw them

with secretary shinseki, i would commissioned an inspector general inquiry into the allegations that the v.a. was sending our alaska vets to seattle and to other points even further than seattle for care that could be purchased from community providers in alaska. it was a situation where literally you had -- you had a veteran who was dealing with cancer, needed radiation or chemotherapy treatment, and they were being sent to seattle for a series of treatments when that same treatment could be provided in alaska, in anchorage, in fairbanks. secretary shinseki brought tends that practice. then the third thing that changed is the v.a. hired a creative executive with deep experience in alaska health care market to lead the alaska v.a. health care system. and even better, the v.a. senior

leadership actually empowered her to do the right thing for alaskan veterans. and so when that director began to see waiting lists forming for primary care and behavioral health services in anchorage, she took the initiative, she enlisted non-v.a. providers to come in and work with them to solve the problems. and so we were in a pretty unique situation. we didn't suffer the waiting lists that veterans in the lower 48 saw because we had somebody that was at the helm, saw the problem, said, we can be creative if we have a little bit of flexibility and we can work to address our veterans' needs. the model was pretty simple. it if a veteran needed to see someone outside the v.a., they were placed with that outside provider by v.a. staff, and these are v.a. staff people in

alaska, people who know alaska's geography, who know that you can't drive from bethel to anchorage, to know the breadth and limitations on services available within our state. and then the bill for the services was sent to the v.a. it was not sent to the veteran. so if for some reason a provider isn't paid on time, the veteran was insulated. they were protected from collection agency calls. now, it wasn't a perfect system. it wasn't without complaints. but, on balance -- on balance, this was the best alaska's veterans were ever treated. and then came the phoenix scandal. and we had hoped that what it happened there, the spotlight that was shone on the v.a. as a result of a horrible scandal in phoenix, we hoped that it would not affect the good things that we were doing in alaska. two years later, i can tell you

that things have changed profoundly and, unfortunately, not for the better. the choice act seems to have been the ca catalyst for unraveg the v.a.'s reforms in our little corner of the world. let me explain why. when we were presented with the choice act, i looked at it as, this is going to be another tool that the v.a. could use to help expedite care to veterans who couldn't get their care in a timely fashion. so if this is another tool in the toolbox, this is going to to be food for our vets. but -- this is going to be good for our vets. but the v.a. didn't view it simply as another tool. they viewed is the choice act as the single answer. to this day, the v.a. seems to almost resent the fact that a variety of other purchased care programs coexist with the choice

act. it makes it impossible for local v.a. officials to use the community care providers with whom they have built these relationships. that whole unraveling was enough to send our creative, in, innove alaska v.a. director into retirement. that position has been vacant since. oh, and by the way, when veterans question the v.a. about why things have changed, what's happened here? we had a good system, it was working. what has happened? the v.a. talkingpoints said, blame the congress. they gave us the choice act. there's nothing we can do with it. and that's an entirely disingenuous response, given that all of the purchase care authorities were on the books before the choice act continued -- so they were on the books already, and they continued on the books after choice came on.

the v.a. had the flexibility before the choice act to craft local solutions and they had the same flexibility to do so after the choice act. the decision not to support local flexibility was a deliberate choice, and it was choice of the bureaucracy, not a choice that was mandated by the congress. so really, how has the choice act been working out in the state of alaska? i spent a lot of time back home -- i spend a lot of time back home. i spend a lot of time visiting with our veterans, and i'm listening hard. and every now and again i do hear a veteran who says, yeah, i think -- i think things are okay. i thim gating the care i want. but more often than not, what i'm hearing from our vets is that instead of the choice act, it's called the bad choice act -- or no choice at all. for a while, it seemed that the

native partnerships would be subsumed in choice, and we pushed back on that and we won, thankfully. but for our veterans who need specialty care, the choice act -- the choice program has been a tough road to hoe. a couple examples: there was an elderly klinkett gentleman sent to seattle for a form of cancer therapy not available in alaska. in the middle of his episode of care, he was told, you're going to have to return to alaska. and it was only after days on the phone with the v.a. and to the choice contractor, each who was pointing the finger at the other, that the problem was resolved. meanwhile, this veteran was essentially telling his family, you better prepare for a funeral. it was that dire. then there was the veteran who was scheduled for neurosurgery. this certainty was told that her referral from the anchorage v.a. was rescinded and she would need

to go to the choice program for another. so she calls the choice contractor's hot line that she was referred to for behavioral health providers. eventually, the individual -- she's talking to this person on the other end of the help line who didn't know what neurosurgery was. when the particular problem was resolved, the neurosurgeon was no longer available, and the veteran was stuck on painkillers until her surgery could be rescheduled. not a good outcome. then another one -- a veteran living in juneau, our capital city. he was under the on-going care of a local ophthalmologist. but that dr. didn't take care. so the veteran calls for another referral and he was told, you can drive to sitka to see an ophthalmologist there. well, if you're listening to this and you're from alaska, you would be laughing now because

you know that there is no road from juneau to sitka. they're both islands. so the other reason that you might raise an eyebrow is not only can you not drive there, but there's no ophthalmologist in sit kavment the choice participant was an optometrist. so think about how this veteran feels, when you call the 800 number up and you're told, just drive down to the next town. can't drive and, oh, by the way, that specialist doesn't exist there now, the v.a. and the choice contractor claim to have fixed these problems, but for every problem fixed, there's still a veteran with a new one, a veteran who has lost faith with the choice program and a provider who no longer wants the hassle of taking choice. one provider told me that the amount of time that his staff has to spend on the phone with the choice program is disruptive to his practice, it's unfair to the other patients who aren't

getting the attention that they need from the office staff. so i don't want to stand heard and complain -- stand here and complain without offering solutions. there is a solution to choice problems in the state of alaska and that solution is to go back to the way that we had it. local v.a. partnering, local providers with local patients. so people here provide -- do the partnering with the providers, with the patients. so the senate appropriations committee has urged the v.a. to reinstate this model in alaska through language that is included in the fy 2017 report. but i'm really not sure where it's going, given the current v.a. leadership. the rapport, unfortunately, is just not there. toward the end of secretary shinseki's tenure, members of the veterans' affairs committee in the other body berated the v.a. for its poor congressional

relations. but i will tell you, when i needed to talk to the assistant secretary or, for that matter, to secretary shinseki, they were right there. and even if the results didn't come as quickly as i would have liked them to, that -- that team was clearly delivered delivering for our folks in alaska. but i cannot say the same for the current team. through the fy 2015 aprops bill i demanded a report on how the v.a. would serve alaska's vets under the consolidated choice program we legislated last summer and we still haven't seen that report. during our appropriations hearings i raised concerns about how personnel vacancies and management issues in the alaska v.a. were affecting performance and dr. shulkin took issue with characterization, he offered to show me some metrics. still waiting. just last week he sent a young doctor from philadelphia who is charged with running purchase

care up in alaska. the report back is that he was tone deaf to criticism of choice lodged by our providers and he suggested the rate being paid to the native health system to do work that the v.a. should be doing itself is unjustifiably high. this is really very, very troubling. so we learned that v.a.'s hiring a bunch of new executives to help this individual manage a nationwide community care program. i tell you, i remain very, very concerned. long before the phoenix scandal, the v.a. was purchasing community care using a decentralized model. now it seems to abruptly be moving to a centralized model. i don't know how well centralized models work in other parts of the west or rural communities in other regions, but i can tell you they just

don't work in a place like alaska. one-size-fits-all is not the model that best serves our veterans but this seems to be the direction that we're moving toward. and to make matters worse, we're not even debating what we want community care in the v.a. to look like. we got 100 members who have a stake in the outcome, but only a few seem to be involved in that discussion. the votes always seem to be pretty much straight up or down, no opportunity for amendment. we've done that now twice, in the first instance with the choice act itself, and then again last year when we had to bail the v.a. out because its health care programs had gone insolvent -- or they would have gone insolvent during the august break if we hadn't done so. but we need to, we need to address this. you can't keep writing the check for the v.a. we have to have that reform, and that reform needs to be real and it needs to work. last week the senator from

arizona proposed a three-year extension of the choice program, but there was some changes in the way v.a. pays providers in the purchase care arena, and there was some problematic language that i had, so i wasn't able to support his amendment at that time. but since then he has worked with us, which i greatly appreciate, and the chairman of that committee, we worked to resolve those problems. so i can now support the three-year extension in the choice program that he proposes. i think it is important. again, take the time, let's get this right. but again, i think we need to make sure that we have come to terms, that we know what we want care outside the v.a. to look like. i think there's still some huge problems in the implementation of the choice problem that we need to address and unfortunately these problems are profound in the smaller and

harder to get places like alaska. i think it's high time that we give the v.a. clear direction about the value we place on access to veteran health care in those smaller and hard-to-get places. in many cases, we know the dynamics of our local health care markets better than the advocacy in a v.a. central office. fixing purchase care begins with directing the v.a. to collaborate with members of this body, not necessarily playing people off one another so that once again the bureaucracy winds. we can't sit while the v.a. blames us for failings that need to be owned, failures that might have been avoided through collaboration with those who know their localities best. mr. president, i appreciate the opportunity to spend a few minutes on the floor this

evening talking about how we, how we make good, how we pay tribute to those who have served us. memorial day is but once a year. veterans day is but once a year. but every day, every day we need to be honoring and thanking those who serve us. and when we say thank you for your service, let's show them that we mean it. and holding the v.a.'s feet to the fire on results is one way to do that. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: and the clerk should call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i request that proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i would ask that two individuals from my office, noel levinson and andrea whitty, be granted floor privileges through july 15. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: and the clerk should call the roll.

quorum call:

#.

the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: mr. president, good afternoon. i would ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: thank you. thanks, mr. president, mr. president, i would also ask

unanimous consent that following people: marion gibson, debra prescott, eric hanson and tim mccroson, detailees to the governmental affairs committee be granted privileges to the floor for the remainder of the second session of the 114th congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: thank you, mr. president. we have been on the floor many afternoons, late afternoons. everybody else is packed up and heading for home, you have to listen to me wax i hope eloquently talking about some of the very good people who work at the department of homeland security. and when you look at people who do important work for our country, there is a lot of valuable agencies, a lot of valuable, very valuable people, hardworking people, but some of the best and brightist are -- brightest are folks who work at the department of homeland security and try to protect us, our businesses and our country.

i have come regularly to the floor now for a couple of years to highlight some of the great work being done by the men and women who serve us at the department of homeland security. as you may recall, mr. president, the department of homeland security was sort of cobbled together roughly a dozen years ago. we took 20 different component agencies with over 220,000 employees stationed all over the world and said we're going to make you the department of homeland security. and it's not been easy, but it'n progress. when you consider the department of defense was created right after world war ii and they still struggled at times to be -- to function as effectively as we would like, we shouldn't be surprised that the department of homeland security has gone through some -- some growing pains, if you will. and learning how to work together. we're proud of the work they do, grateful for the work that they do. they have some of the toughest jobs of the folks who work in our federal work force, from stopping drugs from crossing into our borders to protecting

our cyber networks from hackers to securing nuclear and radiological materials, the department of homeland security has diverse, complex and a difficult mission, really a combination of missions. each and every day, tens of thousands of department of homeland security employees quietly and diligently work behind the scenes, and they work to achieve the mission at the core of which is keeping over 300 million americans safe as we go about our daily lives. it's easy to forget that despite all it achieves each day, keeping americans safe around the world, the department of homeland security is still a teenager. i said earlier they came together in 2002, almost 14 years ago following the attacks on 9/11, and when it became clear that we needed a sprawlized agency, we needed a centralized to pool and share information about the threats to our country and to coordinate

the efforts to keep those threats at bay. in 14 years, the department of homeland security has done an exceptional job, integrating nearly two dozen agencies from across the government with different histories, different cultures, different capabilities and expertise, and senior leaders in the department, chief among them now, secretary jeh johnson, deputy secretary ali malarkis work each day and every day to make the department of homeland security more than the sum of its parts. and they stand on the shoulders of those who came before them as secretaries and deputy secretaries of this department. i'm proud that just yesterday, the homeland security and governmental affairs committee on which i serve as a senior democrat approved bipartisan legislation to support the department's efforts by authorizing its unity of effort initiative. that initiative successfully brought agencies within the department together to pool resources, to deepen

coordination and more effectively tackle their joint missions together. i'd like to say that if you want to go fast, go alone. if you want to go far, travel together. and what we see happening at the department of homeland security is the creation of a cohesive unit out of what was very, very many, disparate agencies. but one component agency within the department of homeland security that not only serves a critical mission today but has a long and storied history outside the department is called u.s. customs and border protection. in 1789, believe it, before some of our pages were born, 1789, the u.s. customs service was established and a fleet of vessels set out patrolling our shores to prevent the shipment of illegal goods. 1789. then in 1924, that's nearly 92 years ago to the day, the u.s. border patrol was established. later in 2003, the customs service and border patrol merged

to create the modern customs and border protection agency that operates within the department of homeland security today. today's customs and border protection performs a number of duties on the front lines of a battle against threats like terrorism, drug and human trafficking. they work to secure thousands of miles of border and coastline around this country. they work to facilitate travel, to inspect ships and cargo at our ports of entry and work to stop illegal drugs and other contraband and violent criminals from entering into our country. today alone, it's 60,000 -- its 60,000 employees are hard at work. they are hard at work welcoming nearly one million visitors to our country today, just in one day, screening more than 67,000 cargo containers for hazards and customs violations, and stopping more than 12,000 pounds of illicit drugs from entering our country. and i'm not talking about what they do in a year or a month or even a week. that's what they do in a day. think about that.

in one day. one key resource that our customs officials on the front lines count on is to support c.p.b.'s marine and air operations. air and marine operations uses a fleet of 260 sleek aircraft and 286 marine vessels. one to detect, one to apprehend criminals in places the agency can't reach on foot or in cars. from fast intercepted boats to helicopters to p-3 aircraft like the one i flew in during most of my 23 years in the navy. air and marine operations provide critical support to c. c.v.p. agents, and as they often do important and dangerous work. air and marine agents are also key in helping to find and rescue people on our borders who may be in danger, saving countless people who are found lost and injured in some of the most remote parts of our country.

one c.v.p. marine and air operations agent who goes above and beyond to help secure our borders and keep people safe is this fellow. his name is oscar, oscar peru, like the country, oscar peru, and he is pictured here to my left. oscar peru is a c.v.p. aviation enforcement agent. he is based out of tucson, arizona. he was raised in tucson. oscar joined the arizona army national guard after congress -- after college, rather. he served his state and his country as a guardsman for ten years, including by fighting in operation iraqi freedom. after working for the state of arizona on their joint counternarcotics task force, he joined the border patrol as a senior patrol agent in 2003. after five years as a border patrol agent, oscar joined the border patrol search, trauma and rescue team. the search, trauma and rescue team.

as a trained emergency medical technician, oscar was able to provide life-saving care to countless men, women and children who were lost or injured in some of the harshest environments along our southwestern border of our country. at all hours of the night, oscar has conducted searches to find and save those in need. oscar has also performed the difficult and i'm sure heart breaking task of retrieving the bodies of those who have perished so they can be returned to their families and given a proper burial. since 2008, oscar peru has served as an aviation enforcement agent, coordinating efforts across federal agencies and working with state and local law enforcement, oscar conducts operations to identify and stop criminal activity along our border, from drug smuggling to human trafficking to rescue operations, oscar's work has saved countless lives, arrested countless criminals and kept

countless pounds of drugs from ever reaching our communities. oscar, i'd say, oscar, i'd say that is one impressive day's work. and we are grateful to you for doing it. those who know oscar routinely describe him as a man who shows incredible compassion for everyone, for everyone that he encounters. both in his personal life and in his work. and through his years of dedicated service, oscar has earned the trust of his pierce who rely on him as a leader during risky operations and dangerous missions. as a certified manufacture and instructor in helicopter ropes and suspension techniques, oscar uses his experience to train others, and the skills necessary to operate safely in a dangerous environment. often leaning out of the door of a helicopter hundreds of feet up in the air, it is no wonder that his colleagues describe oscar as courageous and as inspiration to those around him. so to oscar, my friend, we say

thank you, thank you for your remarkable continued service to our country and to your community in tucson. and a special thanks for all the lives you have saved and will continue to save through your heroic work. to oscar's wife and four children, we say thank you for sharing with us a good man, your husband and your dad, and for letting him do the important work that he does every day to keep americans safe along the southern border and really around our country. and to the 1,200 men and women of the air and marine operations and 60,000 employees at customs and border protection, thank you for your continued service to our country and for your dedication to the safety and security of so many others. and as i said earlier, mr. president, more than 200,000 employees at the department of homeland security have some of the toughest jobs of any of our public servants. working outside the spotlight to

tackle difficult challenges and protect our communities and our families. to each of you, i just want to say again, as i say here every month, thank you, keep up the good work and may god bless each and every one of you. and with that, mr. president, i want to take another few minutes, i think i have the time. i don't see anybody waiting to speak. i want to take a moment and say something about a fellow named john costinen. john costinen is the commissioner for the i.r.s. gosh, in 2013, at a time of great tumult at the i.r.s., president obama turned to john costinen to lead the i.r.s. because of his reputation in the public and private sectors as a go-to manager of troubled enterprises. he was 74 at the time, and he agreed to take this on. he didn't need to do this. he needed to do this job like he

needed another head, but he said that he would do it and agreed to do it because the president asked him to serve our country, and they needed a strong leader at the i.r.s. prior to his service at the i.r.s., he held positions of nonexecutive chairman of freddie mac from september, 2008, to december, 2011, and during that time he served as the interim c.e.o. at freddie mac. that was a tumultuous time, a very difficult time for our country. as the principal financial officer at the death of freddie mac's acting c.f.o. in april, 2009. he retired from the freddie mac board in february, 2012. i just want to tell -- mention another thing or two about john costinen's service prior to coming on board in the last decade to help us in the public sector. prior to serving on the freddie mac board, mr. costinen served as president of the u.s. soccer

foundation for 2004-2008. he also previously served as deputy mayor of the district of columbia, the deputy director for management for the -- for the office of management and budget, and as chair of the president's council in 2000 on conversion. prior to entering government service, john costinen worked for 21 years for the palmieri company as vice president, president, c.e.o. and chairman, working and around turnarounds, he was a turnaround person, helping to turn around large failed enterprises. earlier in his career, he served as an administrative assistant and assistant to the deputy national director of the national advisory commission on civil disorders. he practiced law with the firm of gibson, dunn, and clark for david basellin, chief judge of

the u.s. court of appeals for the district of columbia. and his -- bachelor's degree duke university law degrees from yale. what a resume. at the age of 74, somebody who had helped turn around a lot of failed enterprises, our president reached out to him. he probably said i know you're 74, a age when a lot of people are slowing down, taking life easy, he took on one of the toughest challenges of all. he is one of the finest people i know in public service. there are some folks in the congress who have been asserting that he is unfit for service. i just want to say they could b. this is a good and decent man. i was raised to treat other people the way i want to be treated, to figure out the right thing to do, to treat others the way i want to be treated. given the sacrifices that he's made with his life at this stage of his life, he should be taking

okays. i would say to you, john costin costinen, if you are out there listening and if you have other things to do other than listening to wrapups in the u.s. senate before we begin the memorial day break, i want to say thank you for a lifetime of service and especially thank you for your service as our leader of the i.r.s. god bless you, and thanks to your family for sharing with us a very great human being. and with that, mr. president, i don't see anyone waiting to take the floor. i will note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: and the clerk shall call the roll. quorum call: quorum call: quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: i ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: i would like to offer and ask unanimous consent to submit for the record a letter dated may 23 from john cost costinen, the commissioner of the i.r.s. whom i was just discussing but a letter to the honorable bob goodlatte, chairman of the committee on the judiciary in the u.s. house of representatives.

mr. president, if i may, i would ask unanimous consent that this appear in the record immediately after my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: thank you so much. with that i note the absence of a quorum. i wish you well. see you in a week. the presiding officer: the clerk shall call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: