a balanced approach that keeps america safe and strong at home and abroad, and senator mccain and i both believe that sequestration has to be eliminated. what i would suggest, it has to be done in balanced way. it has to keep the intent of the bipartisan budget act and the budget control act by treating p defense and non-defense spending equally. let me also be clear, the bill before us provides the amount outlined in the current law as well as. they certainly would like more, but they have testified that for this year these resources are at least adequate. they have also made it very clear that if we do go into sequestration in the next year, it would be absolutely devastating to the department of defense. and as a result, we share, the

chairman and myself, the same commitment to ensuring that the sequestration is eliminated and will be moved to a more rational budgeting process. these military professionals would like to have the certainty of a yearlong funding at the committee level report. at least. that certainty is extremely important. i don't think they want to roll the dice. they recognize that this lengthy fight for parity could last all the way through this year. what they'd like to see us do, i believe, is what they said in their testimony. we can operate under the budget as proposed by the president and recognize and underline -- an underlining committee mark and that will give us the certainty we need. the bill reported out of the senate armed services committee includes $523.9 billion in

discretionary spending for defense-based budget requirements and $58.9 billion for overseas contingency operations. owe coaccount. it includes $19.3 billion for the department of energy related activities resulting in $602 billion for discretionary national defense spending. while these funding levels adhere to spend limits mandated by the bipartisan budget act or the b.b.a., concerns have rightly been raised that the department may require additional resources to carry out the missions and to adequately maintain the readiness of our military forces. as my colleagues are aware, when the senate considered the b.b.a. last fall it established a discretionary spending level for fiscal year 2015 and that agreement passed this chamber with support of stphoerts -- senators of both parties. the spending was split evenly between the defense and non-defense categories. it is important to remember that

we have repeatedly made incremental changes to discretionary budget caps for both defense and non-defense accounts. we have done so in order to provide some budgetary certainty to the department of defense and our domestic agency, and these spend caps were first revised with the american taxpayer relief act of 2012, the bipartisan budget act of 2013 and the bipartisan budget act of 2015. in each instance bipartisan majorities in congress voted to increase the spending caps and provide additional resources evenly split between defense and non-defense accounts. unfortunately providing relief to the budget caps to defense spending as the underlying amendment by the chairman proposes, whaoeupl taking no -- while taking no action on non-defense spending would renege on those bipartisan agreements and the sense of common purpose that at least motivated us in the last several adjustments to the sequestration act. my amendment in contrast would

keep the pressure on for a permanent solution to the budget caps in sequestration by tpraoegt -- treating defense and non-defense discretionary spending equally. we can't afford to miss sequestration relief. it also reinforces and underscores the sense of senate passed by this committee as part of this bill that clearly states that -- quote -- "sequestration relief should include both defense and non-defense relief." again, that is a concept that motivated all of us or a vast majority through many, many years. specifically, my amendment would revise the budget caps to allow for an additional $18 billion in non-defense and defense-focused domestic spending to match the additional $18 billion in defense spending. the additional non-defense funds are intended primarily to help address security challenges that do not fall within the purview of the department of defense including unfunded mandates to i am complement -- implement the

plan for isil and border security, first responders, counter narcotics, refugee assistance, zika prevention and treatment and infrastructure security and vulnerabilities. true national security involves more than just the activities of d.o.d., and so non-d.o.d. departments and agencies should also receive relief from the caps. the pentagon cannot meet the complex set of national security challenges we face without the help of other government agencies and departments, including state, justice and homeland security. there is a symbiotic relationship between the d.o.d. and other civilian departments and agencies that contribute to our national security. it has been recognized that providing security for the american people requires a truly whole of government approach that goes beyond just a strong d.o.d. the budget caps are based on a misnomer that discretionary spending is divided into security and nonsecurity

spending, but members need to be clear, essential national security functions are performed by government departments and agencies other than department of defense. as retired marine corps general maddis says if you don't fund the state department fully, then i need to buy more ammunition. general madison's point is best illustrated in the administration's nine lines of effort to counter isil. of these nine lines of effort, only two fall squarely within the responsibility to the department of defense and intelligence communities, i.e. traditional activities. the remaining fall primarily on the state department and other civilian departments and agencies. my amendment includes $1.9 billion to support this counter isil strategy, including supporting effective governments in iraq. no amount of military assistance to the government in iraq will be effective in countering an

isil threat in iraq if the government doesn't give sunnis hope they will participate in iraq's future. we need a diplomatic effort in the state department to engage the sunnis, shias and minority communities in iraq to promote reconciliation in iraq and build political unity among the iraqi people needed to defeat isil and those resources will come through the state department primarily. building partner capacity, the coalition is building the capability to wage a long-term campaign against isil. while the efforts to build the capacity of the iraqi security forces and some of other foreign departments are funded by the department of defense, the state department and usaid are responsible for billions of dollars in similar activities and across a broader spectrum of activities. we have to disrupt isil, particularly their finances.

countering isil's financing requires the state department and treasury department to work with their foreign partners and the banking sector to ensure that our counter isil sanctions regime is implemented and enforced. these state and treasury led efforts are nonsecurity and a very simple dichotomy drawn under the budget caps. the office of foreign control, ofac and tfi treasury department are also categorized as nonsecurity activities under the budget caps. the republican funded strategy not only means our counter isil efforts will be hampered, so too will our efforts to effectively impose sanctions against iran, sudan and individuals that support their illicit activities. we also have to continue to expose isil's true nature. our strategic communications campaign against isil requires a truly whole of government effort including the state department,

voice of america and usaid. the republican approach is a part of government plan, not a whole of government plan. it is the additional funding that could be used by state, usaid, voice of america and other agencies would not be there. we have to disrupt the flow of foreign fighters and foreign fighters are the lifeblood of isil. without the efforts of our diplomats around the world prodding our foreign partners to pass laws and more effectively enforce the laws on the books the efforts of the coalition to stem the flow of foreign fighters will never be successful. of course we have to protect the homeland. while a small portion of the department of homeland security is considered security-related activities under the budget caps, the vast majority of the department falls into the nonsecurity portion of the budget, providing no relief from the budget caps and the department of homeland security shortchanges efforts to secure our communities and borders against isil threats. and then again we have to

provide support because of the huge crisis, humanitarian crisis that causes instability worldwide and particularly in areas of concern. virtually none of the activities that support humanitarian efforts in the region, the middle east and many other parts of the world are considered security activities. military commanders routinely state that the efforts of the state department, usaid and the office of foreign disaster assistance to provide for refugees and other vulnerable populations overseas are critical to our broader security efforts. that is particularly true in our counter isil campaign. the two -- the administration's two remaining lines of effort against isil, namely denying isil safe haven and enhancing intelligence collection, are primarily funded under the so-called defense or security accounts. however, the continued presence and activities of our diplomats overseas significantly enable both of these lines of efforts.

therefore, our aopld would also authorize additional funds for improved embassy security to help keep these personnel safe. the importance of adequately funding other security focus of departments and agencies was also underscored by the former commander of u.s. northern command admiral william gortney when he testified before the senate armed services committee this year. admiral gortney stated our trusted partnerships are the center of gravity and are critical to our success across the spectrum of our missions. homeland partnerships underscore every one of our mission areas and are best represented by the integration in our headquarters of nearly 60 department of defense and non-department of defense federal agencies, department representatives and liaison offices. i view homeland defense as a team effort and i rely upon partnerships with my fellow commands, the services and our interagency departments to accomplish this mission.

recognizing this reality my amendment includes additional funding for critical domestic efforts including $2 billion for cybersecurity. cyber attacks are a real threat that we must work to address. cyber threats are increasing as our country and government become more digitally connected. there is no question the federal government must do a better job of protecting its systems. this amendment provides an additional $2 billion to address our cybersecurity vulnerabilities in non-defense agencies. i was particularly struck in hearings we had with the department of transportation i.g. and the department of housing i.g. when asked to give us what they felt their major concern was, both indicated it was the potential for cyber attacks and cybersecurity within their departments. so this issue of cybersecurity certainly transcends the department of defense and funding cybersecurity should be a critical, primary objective. it is included in the amendment

that i proposed. we're also asking for $1.4 billion for law enforcement and the department of homeland security. this will help first responder efforts. it will allow the department of homeland security to hire 2,000 customs and border protection officers and reduce wait times and improve security. it's a good sign for our economy that more people have been using air travel since 2009. we have seen many much our larger airports paerpgz experience delays trying -- passengers experience delays trying to go through security. b.w.i. is asking passengers to show up two hours early. now it is one hours and 15 minutes. so it is possible people flying spend more time in the security lines than on the planes. we know how that affects the people we represent. it is also important we have an

adequate number of customs officers not only at the southern border but all points of entry. t.f. green airport has a growing international service but it has become a challenge to the existing number of customs agents and inspectors to meet new demands for service. one of the areas we've talked about extensively on both sides of the aisle over the last several months has been the opioid epidemic. the amendment i would propose would provide resources in the amount of $1.1 billion to help counter this epidemic. in the united states, drug overdoses have exceeded car crashes as the number one cause of injury death. two americans die of drug overdoses every hour. in my home state of rhode island there are more than 230 opioid overdoses deaths in 2014. we acted earlier this year on a comprehensive addiction and recovery act to help deal with this issue, but so far these funding efforts have been blocked, so we have a situation

where there's authority but no funds and i think we need both. i think we have to continually assure we have authority and funds. it is critical we provide real resources to confront this epidemic and ensure people have access to the treatment they need. another issue which threatens our national security but is not a traditional department of defense issue by any means is the threat of the zika virus. it is on every front page, on every news show at almost every moment. this legislation i propose would authorize d is.9 billion for -- $1.9 billion for prevention and treatment. the threat of the zika virus is a public health issue. it has been over two months since the administration asked for emergency funds to speed up development of a vaccine. this shoot should not be a -- this should not be a partisan issue. however -- already, there are

over 1,700 cases of the zika virus in u.s. and u.s. territories. we've seen seven cases so far in my home state of rhode island. the virus is spreading. it isn't going away on its own. we wilcertainly see these numbes increase in the months. i think we have to see this as a threat to our national security and deal with it as we're trying to deal with other threats to national security. our national kiewrt is not just about being strong abroad. it's also being strong at home. a growing vital economy allows us to meet the fiscal challenges we need to fully fund defense, to fully fund our non-defense security activities. and so, as secretary carter has said, underfunding the non-defense portion of the bill, in his words, "disregards the enduring long-term connection between our nation's security and many other factors." factors like scientific r&d to

keep our technological edge, education, an all-voluntary military force on the one hand the general economic strength of our commitment of the secretary much defense's words are right on target. the men and women of our military volunteer to protect and are fighting for our ideals, including a good education, safe communities and functioning infrastructure. there is a reason why our past budget agreements have provided budget parity for defense and non-defense spending. we've done so because we all recognize that we must protect our nation as well as keep our nation worth protecting. our service members and their families also rely on the many services provided by non-d.o.d. departments and agencies. efforts to support all of these goals will be hampered unless civilian departments and agencies also receive relief from the budget caps. my amendment also revises the budget caps to allow for additional spending on important programs carried out by civilian

agencies including $5.1 billion to infrastructure improvements. president eisenhower understood the importance of a strong highway infrastructure to our national defense. in fact, i think at least kilo quellly, his legislation referred to at times of national defense highway system. but it was the federal-aid highway act of 1956 which led to our interstate transportation system. today many elements of that transportation system, both roads and bridges, have fallen below acceptable standards. we need to take action now to prevent further decline in thatvite at system. the unrealistic and arbitrary budget caps have resulted in deep cuts to critical infrastructure programs. we need more resources to invest in our transportation infrastructure systems, not less. in response to these shortfalls, my amendment would apply $5.9 billion to help meet critical infrastructure needs for roads, bridges, rail, affordable housing, v.a. construction projects, water infrastructure

and funds to mitigate lead contamination. a few facts for the consideration of my colleagues: barely one-third of our roads are in good condition and a quufort our bridges need significant repair. in my state, we have a high percentage of structurally deficient bridges and without increased investment that number could double in the next decade. the department o department of n has identified a backlog for bus and rail transit. that continues to increase at a rate of $2.35 billion per year due to inadequate federal funding. amtrak's northeast corridor has a $28 billion state of repair backlog. the federal aviation administration's maintenance backlog has grown to $5 billion and the f.a.a. has identified over $400 million in needs for immediate facilities' repairs that we are not able to meet under our current allocation. if we do not invest in our transportation system, efficiency and vast will be compromised. meanwhile, we have also an

affordable housing crisis in this country. 8 million very low-income americans are paying more for their rent. for every four families that are able to receive assistance, only one can be served in this fiscal environment. families cannot pay for higher education if the majority of their income goes to keeping a roof over their head. it is important to continue to adequately fund the drinking water state revolving fund and work to mitigate lead contamination. the sources are critical to modernize our water extra infrastructure and protecting public health. as the events in flint, michigan, indicate, the more our quality is compromised, the more it becomes a public crisis. it is about preserving an ecosystem keeping our drinking water free from contaminants. in funding these -- we also

understand particularly as you look across the globe at our competitors, our military carpet,our technological edge is narrowing and one haven't that they are investing in a great deal in their infrastructure and we're not investing as we were in the past. again, partly as a result of these budget caps. so my amendment would suggest $3.5 billion for science and tech million to lodge qual investment. federal research centers like n.i.h., national science foundation, nasa all provide hope for treatments and cures for life-threatening debilitating diseases, and making scientific breakthroughs. they are as also key in helping us maintain our competitive edge and the foundation of our national security. again, the technological edge that we enjoyed over our near-term competitors in the past is narrowing. every defense official will say that. and we're not simply going to fix it by putting more money in

defense directed at d.o.d. research. we have to put the money throughout our entire research enterprise. one other area is increasing our basic education. this funding would support full implementation of several bipartisan legislative efforts including the every student succeeds act, the workforce innovation and opportunity act earchths to improve college affordability. we can never be fully secure if we are not fully providing for the development of the children of this country because they will eventually succeed to leadership not just in the military but other critical areas that will make this nation strong and continue our ability particularly our ability to provide the finest military force in the world. all of these fundings require i think a sense that we've tried to articulate throughout, which is that our national security is much more than simply the funding we give the department of defense. a well-trained and educated work

force, a productive workforce contributes to our comu. that contributes to our defense. innovation through scientific research is important to our national security. and then of course the agencies that i cited particularly the department of homeland security, the department of state, all of these agencies have a critical role overseas, and they will not be automobile to play that role if we simply increase funding for the department of defense and not for these other agencies. for sometime now the president and secretaries carter, hagel, panetta and gates have implored congress to end the harmful caps and sequestration. during last year's debate i repeated and forcefully argued that using the o.c.o. accounts set a dangerous precedent. it was a reason i had to vote against last year's bill. i was deeply concern fundamental we use this o.c.o. approach for one year, it will be easy to do it next year and the year after,

ensuring an enduring balance between security and domestic spending. sump an approach would be counter to the original rationale o of the budget contrl act which proposed proportionally equal cuts to force a bipartisan compromise. ultimately, we must return to an era of budget deliberations on which all discretionary spending, both defense and non-defense, is judged by its merited and not by arbitrary limit. we need to begin working together now to remove the budget caps not just for the department of defense but for all federal agencies that contribute to our collective national and economic security. providing relief from the caps to only the defense portion while ignoring the very real consequences of continuing to underfund the non-defense portion moves us farther away from that goal. with that, madam president, i would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

..

quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. ayotte: i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the senate stands in recess subject senate stands in recess subject

>> the sent messages recess for a joint meeting where indian prime minister modi will address congress. complete coverage of the address live shortly on c-span. online at c-span.org. the senate returns this afternoon with more work on 2017 defense finances and programs. the white house announced they will veto the defense spending bill in its current form. ejector number of provisions including language that would inhibit the president ability to close guantánamo bay. we are going public. we will be watched by our friend by people across the country. and i would hope as i said before that the senate may change.

not as a institutions but may become a more efficient body. because of televised proceedings. the proceedings of the united states senate are being broadcast to the nation on television for the first time you're not that we've operated in secret until now. millions of americans have sat in the galleries and observed senate debate during their visits to washington. but today they can witness the proceedings in their own homes. >> and in effect the senate floor has been kind of a stage. the senators have been acting on that stage. the audiences in the galleries. and by our action today we haven't really fundamentally alter that situation your we've simply enlarged the galleries. we have pushed up the wall to include all of the american people who wish to watch. >> commemorating 30 years of coverage of u.s. senate on

c-span2. >> this afternoon transportation secretary anthony foxx will brief the senate commerce committee on the implementation of the fast act which stands for fixing america's surface transportation. a bipartisan five year reauthorireauthori zation of the surface transportation agencies and programs signed into law in december. watch live at 2:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. yesterday on the senate floor members debater provisions in the bill to regulate chemical safety. here's a look. >> mr. president, i want to start off by thanking my really different senate and all. we have had wonderful, a wonderful relationship with it comes to the infrastructure issues. we have not worked terribly well together on environmental issues but because of the our staffs

and members of the committee on both sides of the aisle, we werl able to tough it out and to come up with a bill that absolutely believe is better than current law. i would ask unanimous consent that it is time i get into the record additional views by four lead and democratic negotiatorsy myself, senator udall, senator merkley in senator markey. >> without objection. >> thank you so much. added you rise in sport of h.r. safety for the 21st century act. i spoke at length about this w before so i will not go on for a long time but i do want to reiterate that the journey to j this moment has been the most complicated journey i've ever had to take on any piece of legislation. and i've been around here for a long time. but it was a critical journey we need a bill after senator

lautenberg who fought for the environment of his life. that deal must be worthy of his name. finally, this bill is. it didn't start out that way. i used every prerogative that i had, every tool in the arsenalal to bring it down until it got better. and it is better. it is better than current law. asbestos, for example, is one of the most harmful chemicals known to humankind, and it takes 15,000 lives a year.orm it is linked to a deadly form of lung cancer called mesothelioma. people can breathe in these fibers deep into the lungs where they cause serious damage come and we've addressed asbestos in this bill. we did not and in this bill, which i support. i have stand-alone legislation to do that, but we have made asbestos a priority in this bill. flame retardant are under the category of dangerous chemicals.

they have been linked to a wide array of serious health problems including cancer, reduced iq, developmental -- obesity and reproductive difficulties. and is harmful chemicals have been added to dozens of everyday items such as furniture and baby products. so when we're talking about reform is a toxic loss would not just talking about the conversation. we are not just talking about a series. we're not talking of something you would address any classroom. we're talking about our families. now, the negotiations have been challenging. o many organizations in many states stood strong, despite the pressure to step back.fu and i'm so grateful to them for their persistence. i especially want to thank the 450 organizations that were part of the coalition that worked with me. as well as the asbestos diseaser

awareness organization for theiu efforts. without them i would not have had the ability to negotiate important improvements. let me highlight briefly a fewil of the most important changes in the final bill. and i can't go one more minute e without thinking the two people who are sitting right behind me, my chief of staff on the committee, and chief counsel, and jason who is my seniorrittow advisor. they worked tirelessly through the night sometimes with senatod inhofe's staff. that i can tell you without that work we never would have gottenr to this point and we never woulo have gotten to a bill worthy of frank's name. and it means a great deal to me. now, the first major area of improvement is the preemption of state restriction on toxic chemicals. in the final bill we were able th

to make important exceptions to the preemption provisions. first, the states are free to take whatever action they want on any chemical into api has taken a series of steps to study a particular chemical. number two, when epa announceddy that chemicals they're studying, the states to live up to a yeare and a half to take action on these particular chemicals to avoid preemption until the epa takes final action. free even after epa announces its regulation, the states have the ability to get a waiver so they can still regulate the chemical.e we've made improvements to that waiver to make it easier our states to act. to for chemicals that industry has asked epa to study, we made sure that states are not preempted until epa issues a final restriction on the chemical. and for that i really want to

thank everyone in the house. they put a lot of effort into that. the first 10 chemicals epa evaluates under the deal are also exempted from preemption until the final rule is issued.t also, state or local restrictions on a chemical that were in place before april 22, 2016, will not be preempted. so i want to say that someone who comes from a state, a great state of california, the home to almost 40 million, that has a good strong program, we protected you. would i rather have written this provision myself? m of course, if i'd written it in terms of the standard come and allow the states to but -- to take whatever actions want to make it tougher this was not to be. this was not to be. so because i couldn't get that done, what we are able to get i

done with those four or five improvements that i decided. and to want to say to the states may be watching this debate, you can really tear up and move forward right now. you've got time. you can continue to work on regulations you passed before april. you can also have a year and a half, once epa announced the chemical. if they don't announce anything, you can go back to doing what you did before. and epa, that is not funding right, i say to my jewish a friends on the floor today, if they are not funding, they ain't going to do anything. so the states are going to the ability to do. i would hope we would fund the epa so we have a strong federal program and strong state programs as well. but we'll have to make sure that the epa doesn't continually get cut cut cut. the secretary of improvement o concerns asbestos but i think i've talked about that before.

it is covered in this bill. impr improvement concerned cancer clusters. this one is so dear to my heart. into the heart of republican colleague senator crapo. we wrote a bill together called the kennedy to seize cluster assistance act, or traverse law. traverse law provides for penalties that ask for it, a coordinated response to cancer clusters indignity. what trevor tosh in his dreams with horrible catch is that sometimes these outbreaks occur and the windows wide. and yet is considered a local l issue. now is the local kennedy request is come if they request it, they will get help. fourth, with something called persistent chemicals. just thank you those are chemicals that build up in your body. you just don't get rid of them. and they are a priority in this legislation.r

and fifth, and another one dear to my heart and to distort of senator manchin and senator capito is this provision that ensures the toxic chemicals stored your drinking water are prioritized. this provision was prompted by the fairness build a contaminated drinking water supply in west virginia in 2014, causing havoc and destruction. they didn't know what the it got into the water. they didn't know what to do, and as we all remember, it was a nightmare for the people there. no more. now we are going to make sure that the epa knows what is stored your drinking water supplies. sixth and their import and something they got negotiated in the dead of night come at a want to thank senator inhofe's staff for working with my staff on this. the bill enables epa to order independent testing, if there are safety concerns about the chemical.be of these tests will be paid for

by the chemical manufacturer. i also want to thank members of the hous house who really brougt this to us. finally, even the standard for evaluating whether a chemical is dangerous is far better than tho old. the bill requires epa to do with chemicals based on risks, not costs and consider the impact on vulnerable populations. this is really critical.. the old law was useless. so all of these fixes make this bill better than current federal law. looking forward i want to make a point. this new tsca global only be aso good as the epa is good. we figured epa we can deliver a much safer environment for the american people. safer products, less exposure to harmful toxics and better health for our people. with a bad epa this does not value these goals, not much will get done.

but again it's a bad epa takes no action, states will be free to act. so again i would ask for 30 additional seconds that i would wrap up. >> without objection. >> we do have this down with five people. people. >> i just went and in 30 to seconds. and i will add 30 seconds to your time. >> without objection. >> so i say to the states, you are free to act with a bad epa. compared where we started, we have a much better balance between the states and thet. federal government. it is not perfect. the bills i worked on with frank did not do this, did not preempt the states. but because of this challenging journey him and we respected each other on both sides and we listen to each other on both sides, today is the day we cani, do good about we have a decent bill, a federal program and the states will a lot of latitude to act.

thank you so much i say to my friend. and i would yield the floor. >> mr. president?mr >> the senator from louisiana.a. >> thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise to also log every significant to achievement which were going toe finalize tonight with the final passage of the frank lautenberg chemical safety for the 21st century act. this much-needed bill will provide states to do for decades to the toxic substances control act of 1976, known as tsca for short which is been outdated and overdue for updating since almost that time. now, getting to where we are tonight about to pass this by an overwhelming vote, following the 403-12 vote in the house the few weeks ago, didn't happen overnight. in fact, it took about five plus

years. in 2011, that's when i started discussions with a broad array of folks comfortably including senator lautenberg. and that's what i first sat down with frank and started this process in a meaningful way. and when we agreed that we would try to bridge the significant differences between our two viewpoints and come up with a strong bipartisan bill, that same year i also sat down with john shimkus to deliver to let him know that frank and i were going to put in a lot of effort to come up with this framework, and we wanted him to be a full and equal and contribute in partner. n over the next year and a half, we slog through that process of trying to come up with a strong bipartisan bill. it wasn't easy between senator o lautenberg and myself and our sm staffs, other staffs, there was an awful -- often brutal stretch

them challenging times testing of but his patients. several times we walked away to come back together again. and, finally, finally it did come together. in early 2013 that really started taking shape. towards the end of april 2013 we were far enough along to block a small group of staff and experts in a room to finalize that first bipartisan bill. folks like brian zumwalt, my chief counsel then come to meie took, the with my counsel, if not a key staffer, continues on the epa production committee. senator lautenberg's advisor, and that led finally to disperse bipartisan bill which we introduced on may 23 -- this

first -- 2013. that wasn't the end of our tsca journey and, unfortunately, in many ways the most difficult segment of that journey was soon after that introduction on may 23. because on june 3, just a few weeks later, frank past. the single greatest champion of reforming how chemicals areea regulated died at 89 years of age. that was heartbreaking, but it was a moment when all of us who have been involved only we doubled our commitment to following this through to the'su end. soon after frank's unfortunate passing, our colleague tom udall really stepped up to the plate a major way to take frank's role as the democratic lead in this effort. we had a quiet dinner one night

here on capitol hill to talk about our commitment to carry on this fight and get it done.ip and we formed a partnership, a friendship, that was will build around this work with an absolute commitment to get that done. and i will always be so thankful to tom and his partnership, also his great staff, including their senior policy adviser jonathan black.ove as with most major undertakings, we had a lot of other help all along the way. our own at that stage of the process, senator crapo,nd alexander were extremely helpful. also a little data on senators a broker, senator merkley, senator merkley get a lot to advance the ball and refine the product. of course, at every step of the way i continue to meet and talk with congressman john shimkus.

he was a persistent and unreliable partner in this process, as was his senior policy advisor. throughout this process, staff is absolutely essential in mod unit the.ifficu they did yeoman's work and very, very, very difficult and trying circumstances.er i mentioned brian zumwalt, my former chief counsel. he was a driving force ideas come and i deeply appreciate and acknowledge his work, as well as some else i mentioned, dmitri, who continues to work as a key staffer on the committee and its cink's over the goal line. let me also thank been done, former chief counsel for the center -- senator lautenberg. i think in the beginning particularly dan and brian and dmitri dave each other plenty ot help but work through very difficult negotiations to get it done. and also want to thank jonathan

black andrew in senator udall's office. and with senator markey, and on the outside, a lot of expert help from all sorts of stakeholders across the political spectrum, so including industry representatives withou the american chemistry council and i want to thank mike walls, rudy underwood, amy duvall, robert flagg and, of course, their leader how do we. finally, there's one enormous figure who is owed a great debt of gratitude and a lot of credit for seeing this over the goal line tonight. s and that's frank's better have come an essay that with deep respect and admiration to frank, but his better half, bonnie. she's been called the 101st senator, particularly on this issue. she was devoted to saying --

seeing frank's work completed and i thank her for her relentless efforts reaching out to members, house and senate, stakeholders, to make sure this happened. as i mentioned at the beginning, this is long overdue. all stakeholders across the aspc political spectrum agreed for decades that this aspect of the law need to be updated. we needed to fully protecty, public health and safety which will all want to do. also needed to ensure that american companies which are world leaders today in science, research and innovation remain so and do not get but behind by a ragged choices from which is overly burdensome and unworkab unworkable. this bill properly named after frank lautenberg achieve those goals. it is a positive workable achi

that term, so that we willl achieve of the health and safety, and ensure that our leading american companies, great scientist and great innovators, rate world leaders in this sector remain just that, everything the world leaders we want and need them to continue to be. so i thank all those who contributed to this long but ultimately successful and worthwhile effort. with that, thank you i look forward to our vote and i yield the floor.hile >> mr. president?tt >> the senator from new mexico let me just thank senator vitter so much. he was a great partner in terms of working on this piece of

legislation thoroughly through the process over three years. tr we met i think about three years ago and had a dinner and decided after frank lautenberg had died that we would come after he died, india do a lot of work on the bill, we would pick it up and make it happen. he's been in and of his work and it's been a real pleasure working with them. and let me just say about chairman and often also. what they say in the senate is if you have a strong german, you can get a bill done, and he has strength and his perseverance in terms of moving this bill. we are at a very, very historic point today and i think i would call it a historic moment. and i think you it's been a pleasure working with you. i've enjoyed working with you when i saw the committee and i'm going to enjoy working with you in the future, chairman inhofe entrance of many other issues

that come before us in the senate.ou i don't have any doubt this is a historic moment. several years and congress in the making, and for the first time in 40 years the united states of america on the chemical safety program that works.chemical that protects our families from dangerous chemicals in their daily lives. mr. president, this is significant. most americans believe that when they buy a product at the hardware store or the grocery store, that product has been tested and determined to be safe. but that isn't the case.. americans are exposed to hundreds of chemicals from household items. we carry them around with us in our bodies and even before we are born to some are known as t. carcinogens. others as highly toxic. but we don't know the full extent of how they affect us because they have never been tested. when this bill becomes law there will finally be a cop on the beat.

today under the old tsca from reviewing chemicals is discretionary. when this bill is law, the epa will be required to methodically review all existing chemicals oe for safety, starting with the worst offenders. today the old log required the epa consider the costs and benefits of regulation when h studying the safety of chemicals. very soon epa will have to consider only the health and financial impacts of a chemical. and if they demonstrate a risk, epa will have to regulate. and very soon there will be enshrined in the law that the epa must protect the most vulnerable people, pregnant women, infants, the elderly, and chemical workers. today the old tsca puts burdensome testing requirements on the epa. to test the chemical the epa has to show a chemical poses a potential risk. and then has to go through a

long rulemaking process. very soon epa will have authority to order testing without those hurdles. to today, the old tsca allows new chemicals to go to market without any real review, an average of 750 a year. d very soon the epa would be required to determine that all chemicals are safe before they go to market. today, the old tsca allows companies to hide information about their products claiming it as confidential business information, even in an emergency. very soon we will ensure that companies can no longer hide this vital information. states, medical professionals, and the public with access to the information they need to keep communities safe. and businesses will have to r justify when they keep information confidential. and that right will expire after

10 years. today, the old tsca underfunded the epa. so it doesn't have the resources to do its job. very soon there will be dedicated funding, a dedicated funding stream for tsca. it will require industry to pay its share, $25 million a year.ea in addition this new law will ensure victims can get access to the courts if they are hurt that it will revolutionize unnecessary testing on animals, it will ensure that states can continue to take strong action on dangerous chemicals. mr. president, the senate is about to pass this legislation. it's going to the president and he will sign it. over the past several days i have got the same question over and over again. what made this legislation different? why was the agreement possible when other bills stalled? and i thought about it quite a bit. it isn't that the bill was

simple. this was one of the most complex environmental pieces of legislation around. it certainly was not a lack of s controversy. this process almost fell apart many times. and it certainly wasn't a lack of interest from stakeholders. any groups were involved, all with strong and passionate views. and so what deep distrust. we face countless obstacles but mr. president, i think what madd this possible was the commitment and the willpower by everyone involved to see good legislation through. and into her the slings and arrows. and i want is a heartfelt thank you to everyone involved.ly i remember having dinner with senator vitter one evening early on when i was trying to decide whether i would take up frank cont there was already planning of controversy and concern about the bill.ot senator vitter and i've were not used to working with each other. in fact, we have almost always

been on opposite sides, but i left a dinner with the feeling that senator vitter was this p committed. he wanted to see this process through and willing to do what it would take. for three years i never doubted that. both of us took more than a little heat. we both had to push hard, get important groups to the table, at the table. so i want to thank senatoroc vitter but he's been a true partner in this process for me. there are many others to thank and i will but if i did i want to say a few words about this bill makes it. frank a champion for public health and a dogged, determined leader for tsca reform. w he cared so much for his children and grandchildren. he wanted to leave a better,. healthier, safer -- safer and by the for the to the always said that tsca reform would save more lives than anything ever worked on. this is a bittersweet moment for all of us.

because frank isn't here to see this happen. but i have faith that he is watching us and he is cheering us on. his wife bonnie has been here, working as the 101st senator. she has been a force, and inspiration keeping us going, pushing us when we needed it.fil she help us fulfill frank's vision to in the beginning we thought the bill might not ever get introduced in the senate. we entered this caucus after republicans took the majority. many felt strong environmental legislation was impossible. they urged us to wait but many of us felt that for years wasit already too long to wait. we knew we could do it and make it better and get it passed. senator carper was one of those key members on the environment . committee. he gave us legs to get out of the gate. the and senator manchin, senator coons were among the original

cosponsor to recognize we had a great opportunity before us and want to thank them all. mr. president, they say in order to get things done in washington you need a good, strong chairman. and chairman inhofe fits that description. i want to thank chairman inhofe and especially his staff, ryan jackson and dmitri. chairman and also key was instrumental in moving things forward and worked with me to ensure we build the broadest possible support.ttee. they knew with broad support you could do better than get it out of committee.ro we could get it across the finish line. there are days when we all feeln discouraged by gridlock in washington, chairman inhofe and senator vitter rose above the. they saw the value in working together across party and across house and senate. senators booker, merkley and white house all understood we could work together. i want to thank them for

sticking with this bill. working through differences. as a result of their efforts the bill gives states stronger protection and it helps reduce unnecessary testing on animals. and it includes a number of other improvements. their staff, adam, adrian and emily, among others, were key. a strong bipartisan vote of 15-5 out of committee set this up for auction on the floor. is me of you know, floor time is variable and hard to come by, and subject to non-pertinent issues. we needed to work to ensure the broadest possible support. and we did that with senators durbin and barkie, 59th and 60th cosponsors of our legislation giunta want to thank them and their staff memberseedo jazzman, michael for the important work to improve key aspects of the federal program like fees and implementation

dates, and to ensure we could pass this bill through the senate. spent time is expired.s >> is my time up, mr. presidentk >> it is. >> thank you very much. and let me just say i'm going to stay over. i know the two senators, i want to thank them. i i'm going to stay with senator in half here and think additional people because i think it's that important.ld we had this time agreement. i'm going to you to senator markey for five minutes and then we're going to senator whitehouse for five minutes, unless there's republicans to intervene, chairman inhofe. >> senator markey would yield? is already yielded. idea ask unanimous consent that before the vote that we include in the record a colloquy between myself and senator vitter. >> without objection. >> also would say i will forego my remarks and order to give them more time until after the

vote. >> who yields time? spent ideal time come theis thes agreement as i understand it is senator markey will speak for five minutes, then senator whitehouse for five minutes, and then back -- >> that's already unanimous consent. sta >> mr. president? >> senator from massachusetts. >> thank you, mr. president. today congress stand ready to reform the last of the core poor environmental statutes. and may do so with a stronger bipartisan vote that any other major environmental statute inee recent american history. for a generation of the american people have been guinea pigs in a terrible chemical experiment. told that all the fans at our chemistry labs would make us healthier, happier and safer, american families have had to

suffer with decades of a law that did nothing to ensure that that was true. but that is because when the industries successfully overturned the epa's proposed ban on asbestos, it also rendered the toxic substances control act all but unusable. children should not be unwittinh scientific subjects. today we have a chance to protect them by reforming this failed law. as ranking democrat on the senate subcommittee of jurisdiction, i was one of a handful of members who participated in an informal conference with the house. and have with senator udall, boxer and merkley prepared a document that is intended to memorialize certain agreement made in the bicameraltypica negotiations that would typically have been included in a conference report. in our work with the house we truly did take the best of both bills when it came to enhancing

epa's authority to regulate chemicals. the degree to which states will be preempted as the federal government regulates chemicals has been a source ofll considerable debate since this bill was first introduced.y i have always been a very strong supporter of states' rights to take actions needed to protect their own residents. and for many of us accepting prevention of our states was a difficult decision that we only made as we also secured increases to the robustness of the epa chemical safety program. i am particularly pleased to efforts i helped lead resultedce in the assurance of massachusetts pending flame retardant law will not be subjected to clause prevention, and that there is a mechanism in the bill to ensure that states ongoing work on all chemicalstun can continue while epa is studying those chemicals. in fact, the bill is supported

by the epa, the chemical industry and the chamber of commerce and the trial lawyers tells you something. the fact that a staggering 403 members of the house of representatives voted for this tsca bill, more than the number who agreed to support the clean air act, the clean water act, the safe drinking water act amendments when those laws will be authorized tells you something. what it tells you is that we worked together on a bipartisan and bicameral basis to compromise in the way americans expect us to. although there are many people who helped create this moment come up like to thank someone for over the past few months i especially want to recognize. bonnie lautenberg on behalf of her husband frank. she was relentless. senator inhofe and his staffers, ryan jackson and dmitri, who

remain as committed to agreements that they made about senate democratic priorities as they were to their own priorities throughout this process. i canno couldn't have imagined a stronger or more constructive partnership senator udall and his staffers true, jonathan, whose leadership especially during these challenging momento were very important senator merkley and his staff, adrian whose creativity often led us to legislatlegislative breakthrougs especially went into crafting certain preemptive authorized.taff my own staff, she has done little but this for one consecutive year. this is her 20th year on my staff. with her ph.d in biochemistry company was invaluable in negotiating with the americants. chemistry council and all other interests. i also want to thank many of the

members, senator boxer, senator whitehouse and his staff. team along with barbara boxer. senator mcconnell, senator reid, senator durbin also to place in making sure this legislation was here today..a the spectacular and hard-working epa team, all of them provide us dawn other help, often late at night and before dawn. i think gina mccarthy, jim jones, wendy hammond, ryan, priscilla, kevin book lincoln nicole, sven -- >> senators time is up spinning tthat i asked for one justin additional been? >> is there objection? without objection. >> ryan schmidt, scott sherlock.

stephanie harding and andrew macondo whose engagement of the special in these last few weeks. that'and some outside stakeholds who worked particularly closely with my staff and with me, and rogers and andrew goldberg, richard anderson, joanna, mike walls, rich, stopped. i enjoyed meeting, working with him a partnering with each onepl of these outstanding people over the last year. this is a huge bill. it's a historic moment. it's going to make a difference in the lives of millions ofca americans. it's the most significant environmental law passed in this generation. spent centers time has expired. >> the old law did not work. this will protect the american people. i yield back the balance of mys. time. >> mr. president?it's >> the senator from rhode isla

island. >> mr. president, as the long russia as the long a russia as e source of as a long strange trip getting there and it's had its share of new death experiences, as senator udall is intimately aware of it. i was involved with senator merkley and senator berger inag what is new death expenses. this was a rocket with stages give one of the major stages was a merkley booker white house effort in the committee. t u and i just wanted to say it's the first time the three of us have worked together as a triumphant and they were wonderful to work with. they were truly a pleasure. we had a lot on our plate. we made about a dozen major changes in the bill and i want to just take a moment to thank him only on my staff who was negotiat terrific for all of the negotiations and we negotiations and counter negotiations in that stage.iously a but this was obviously a rocket that many more stages than the one at what to thank chairman

inhofe and his staff for their persistence through all of this. ranking member boxer was just tremendous and tried to make this bill passed on as she could make it come through every single state. and it is marked by that persistent. senator vitter in senator udall forged the original notion that this compromise could be made to happen. and they have seen it through so i congratulate them. the house had a rather different view of how this bill should look, and between senator inhofe in senator udall, they were able to work out a bicameral as welle could agree duty to allah thinks involved when they want to close by offering a particular thanks to my friend senator udall. in greek mythology, there is a titan who brought fire to humankind. and the penalty for bringing

fire to humankind was to be strapped to the rocks by chains and have eagles eat his liver every single day. eve it's an image of persisting o through pain. and i do have to say senator vitter may have had his issues on his site. k i didn't know how to look like i can promise you on our side tom udall persisted through months and months and months of pain, always with a view that this bill could come to the place where the state could happen. so there are times when i legislation, legislators on whes legislation is a human survive. this is a human story of a courage, foresight, persistence, patience and willingness to absorb a considerable number of slings and arrows on the day evy when slings and arrows often put down and everybody can shake

hands and agree. we have i think a terrific victory, and while there's much credit in many places, my heart in this is what senator tom udall of new mexico. i yield the floor. >> mr. president? >> the senator from oklahoma. >> now to inquire as to how much time is remaining? >> seven and a half minutes.inh: >> said again. >> seven and a half minutes. >> let me make one, and then i will yield back. >> that's all the time that is remaining. >> all right. >> that's all the time that is remaining. >> that's all the time that is remaining, is that correct? that i will not be using seven and half minutes but it will be using that after the vote.nc i do want to include one more person who is having think that senator mccain. right now we're in the middle of the bus passed bill every year, the defense authorization bill. is tidied up to allow us to worh

this in during his very busy schedule in this bill we're trying to get through this week. to iq thinking very much and with that, you know, it is important, even though we thank the same people over and over again, when we get to dmitri to go to pronounce his name right and i will be thanking him and several others, but with that i will go ahead and yield our time back that i see the senator -- [inaudible] >> of course. the senator from massachusetts. >> i just want to once again, senator inhofe, consummate year and senator vitter. reache way.he it woun wanted this way because reached across the aisle because you insured that all sides were given a fair hearing, and that at the end of the day it would be this resulted so i just want to been doing this for 40 years. i've been on the environmental committee for 40 years. this is not easy.

from my perspective it'snted historic, and it's unprecedented in terms of ultimately how easy you make this process. i was there at the table superfund, clean air act, all the way. you, my friend, have distinguished yourself the along with senator vitter you made possible for all of us to hold hands you as this historic bill tonight will pass on the semaphore. i just want to coverage one more time. >> i appreciate the remarks from the senator from massachusetts very much. with that i will yield back our time and ask for the vote. >> the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye ago. opposed by the the eyes if you do have. the eyes do have a. the motion is agreed to. [applause]. inhofe

>> mr. president? >> the senator from oklahoma. >> let me go through the list as i made the statement that it's important that people do recognize how long staff works around here. and quite frankly i've often said when they come around for our committee, environment public works committee, the committee that has the largest jurisdiction in the entire united states and we are the committee that gets things done to those who are committed to look at the variety of philosophies that are present, praising his work to be done, we have every most conservative to the very most progressive members. and it's not just this bill. we did the highway bill. the highway reauthorization bill. something that we been waiting, had to wait for about eight years to get done and the largest one since 1998.ls we have the other bills were

working on.t we have the wrda to which we anticipate will be a reality that comes out of our committee. what? [inaudible] >> you guys talk about it. the nuclear bill. that's right.ver this but also has thet jurisdiction over the nuclear regulatory regulation. so that's come and that all of, all of the public works.king and as my ranking member, senator boxer, has said several times during this process, we get things done and we do disagree on a lot of issues on the environment, and i say to my good friends on the other sidehe of the aisle, you have every right to be wrong, and but we get things done. i appreciate that very much. senator mccain, i already

thank you for using already thank you for you to do is to allow us to pass with no significant bills which we just passed. >> i am glad to be thanks again. >> if the sender will yield. >> i yield. yes, i yield. >> mr. chairman, which is also, have you finished? i want to just a few closing words and think a few more people staying to the in but i-- would also, but, of course, the chairman needs to finish his remarks spill let me -- i do want to make sure we get on record on this.or senator vitter, senator udall, certainly the senator from new mexico. the way we worked together is remarkable. and you have brought in bonnie to the work that she has done. i know she wanted to be your, as we are voting this on this bill,

but it got down to do it want to get it done tonight or do wet want to take a chance for a vote later? dimitri -- dedicate that? anyway, all these were working, john d. black with senator udall's office has been greaterl andrew wallace ably representedt senator udall in those negotiations. i want to thank senator markey's office for hours working in the builder also want to thank adrian with senator merkley for his work in these negotiations and atom, representing senator carp build and family with senator carper senator carper has not been mentioned much to produce very, very active in getting this done. emily with senator whitehouse.o, senators carper, senator

whitehouse, booker in berkeley been partners in getting thisanm completed and appreciate as i said many times before senator boxer and her team, for working with us, supporting this bill. we've done not just this bill but a lot of bills in the committee and the same characters keep coming up. so it's the stuff that is to this thing. i to say my chief of staff, the one whose most prominent on the committee, is one that obviously did so much of the work on thisn and so ryan jackson, you have done a great job. and with that i will yield the floor. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and chairman inhofe, i just want to state again that bipartisanship you should was incredible, and it showed what a significant accomplishment we could have. also want to thank so much senator mccain for allowing us

to fit a little slice in the middle of this very, very important bill, the in the a tape which i know he works on all year long. it does a terrific job -- ndaa -- about is the coming. i told him because he knew my uncle mo udall companies are together in the house and i said i hope you will do this, do it for mobile. and he just got a great big smile on his face because he spent so much time speed with the senator yield speak with yes, i will yield spent i said one of the best for last andinh: that's alex, neglected tohe mention him. i yield. >> of course, alex, thank you. thank you. when the house and the senate, e would just ask used enough time year to just get through myhrouh think use, ask consent for that. the house and senate passed bills come and we didn't actually go through a conference committee but we really worked hard on those differences from late december through just a few

weeks ago. we face challenges working out a final agreement with the house. we have two very different bills. fix all that bond -- broad bipartisan support but it took very different paths to fix her broken chemical safety program. but we worked through those issues, and to this, although this was not a formal conference, it was a true t bicameral process with a lot of give-and-take. that the record reflects a a number of views that i in sum my colleagues have about the final product. we are not fighting a traditional conference report but senators boxer, berkeley and i have prepared a document to enjoy the views we have on the compromise language. i will be added to the record for our prosperity on the final product about ask consent that be printed into the record. a >> without objection. >> and i want to thank all of our senate and house colleagues who were instrumental in pulling this together.

again, chairman inhofe was the driving force, and senator vitter, center crop up, senator merkley, boxer. throughout this entire process ranking member boxer and i did not always agree but we are of the same party but we also havet different opinions about the most important aspects of this legislation. but i want to say i'd sincerelye appreciate her work at advocacy, station on state preemption. she's a force to all of my colleagues know that. and she worked hard to improve bill. legislative process is an important one and i believe it played out to a good resolution. i also want to thank her and her staff for their dedication and work. and then my staff members have been mentioned several times were crucial, john d. black, andrew wallace, mike collins, and all my staff who over these three years kicked in and helped

out when the heavy burden was on the folks that i have mentioned. on the house side i want to thank chairman upton, the subcommittee chairman john shimkus and, of course, peter pelosi, democratic whip or year, ranking of alone and representatives to get and green. it all worked tirelessly to advocate for reform. i would like to mention their staff numbers as well. republican staff dave mccarthy, jerry, tina richardson, chris, at the democratic staff with, jackie, julie, jean, especially mary frances with representative hoyer's office and eleanor bastion and sergio.ta all the staff and so many more worked tirelessly to advocatee for the members to shape into this conference and important legislation. and, of course, my own staff and many more who i did not mention

company said it now staff who have come and gone over the long process but played very here, important roles. the argument to try to industry but let me say thanks to the good folks in the house and senate legislative council offices. throughout this process we uses both offices, a tremendous amount and appreciated their patience and good work, especially michelle johnson, more rain, deanna, at the senate legislative council. and while like this take so much work from all these office and staff and i know that my ownan staff could not have possibly done it without the expertise and advice of the experts at environmental protection agency. of course, it ministry did gina mccarthy enter top assistantis administrator jim jones deserve a great deal of gratitude forur all they did to support our efforts and ensure we got it anl right.

and many congressional liaison, program officer employers from the general counsel's office. my staff and others spent many evenings and weekends with epa g experts on calls to make sure we were getting the text by. here are just a few. windy, ryan, priscilla, kevin, brian, dave, laura, nicole,t coi eric, ryan, and scott. and want to thank them all and put them on alert. the real job for the epa is only beginning. and i'm about finished year, senator markey speak at a just want to reinforce what you just said. on the house side, fred upton, frank pallone, nancy pelosi, and steny hoyer an incredible staff mary frances over there, justibi indispensable. that's why cabinet with with bipartisan backing them up to

thank gentleman for yielding. >> thank you, senator markey. i do know because you've serve so many years how important it is to have good step and i wanted to just make sure that we give them all thanked here. i think agreement and appreciate that. implementation of this law isxty going to be extremely important that as the ranking of on the appropriations committee with jurisdiction over the p.a., iil will remain very involved and ensuring that this law gets implemented well. and finally i also want to recognize all the great advocates for reform who pushed congress to act and kept pushing into we get act. of course i need to start byd, thanking environmental defense fund come in particular fred and his staff, richard, joanna, jack pratt.o but they also think dr. linda goldman, the dean of public health at george washington university and the good advocates at the humane society comp national wildlife federation. .. responsible medicine, the building trades, the american

association of justice, and so many others. they reminded us that we were working for reform that would improve the lives of countless mothers, fathers, and children. from new mexico to michigan, from california to maine, they reminded us that the american reminded us that the american from new mexico to michigan to california to maine, theyan reminded us that the american people need a working chemical safety program. i know there are many groups out there in environmental and i understand and appreciate where they were coming from. group from safer chemicals, natural resources defense council. they brought passion and conviction to the debate andt stood firm on principles, they played a great and important role and i want to thank them for that. good legislation takes work, it takes give and take from everyone including industry 100 groups, the american equipment

industry council, the american cleaning institute and other memos, thank you for engaging it the process to get this done. many thousands of americans have worked for chemical safety reform over the last four sai decades. thanking you and i'm thanking you for not giving up. get it done and get it done right. today i can say not only did we get it done but we got it done right. let's now forget this is one step in the process we must find away to work collaboratively as we turn to the next step, implementation. implementation needs to be done and needs to be done right. i look forward to working with all of these members and groups to ensure we have a strong i workable safety program, thank you, senator mccain, i'm sorry

if this went longer than you expected, but i know my uncle ms is looking down and saying,'v thank you to you and my father stewart and all the long relationship with the family and the chapters in your book and mudall and that relationship. and i thank you so much. i thank ranking member jack reid. i know the hour is getting late. thank you so much. i know it's getting late. >> it will go straight to the president's desk. the senate is in recess right now as members are across the capitol in joint meeting with indian prime minister, watch the address now live on c-span. a

>> the national defense act is important for us and it's important for national security. one way will help keep americans safe is by reviewing clear prohibitions on president's ability to improve dangerous guantanamo terrorists into our country or release them to unstable regions like libya, somalia. our country places crisis since world war ii as henry kissinger last year. president obama never seems focused on pursuing a stale campaign pledge from 2008.ex the president will spend remaining months to defeat isil. he should not waste another minute on his guantanamo

crusade. just about every detainee that could feasible be released from the detention facility has already been released. some have returned to the fight just as we feared. some have taken even more b innocent american lives according to the obama administration. but the bottom line is this, the hard-core terrorists that do remain are among the worse of the worst. here is how president obama's secretary put it, there are people in gitmo that are sosi dangerous that we cannot transfer them to the custody of another government. i can't assure the president that it would be safe to do that . there's caleed, master mind of

9/11. there's a 9/11 coordinator that was planning more strikes and bin bin laden's former body guard and trained to be a suicide hijacker for what was the southeast asia portion of the 9/11 attacks. these terrorists are among the worst of the worst.ac they belong at a secured detention facility. not in facilities here in our own communities, not in unstable countries where they are liable more innocent lives and have no doubt there are detainees who would certainly rejoin terrorist organizations if given that opportunity. here is what the office of the direct o of national intelligence found in a report just this year. based on trends identified during the past 11 years we assessed that some detaineesiv

currently will seek to reengagea in terrorist and insurge activities. the next commander in chief whether democrat or republicansa will confront array of threats. we must use the remaining months of the obama administration. what we should not be doing is making it more challenging for the next president to meet these threats. releasing hard-core terrorists was a bad idea when obama was campaigning in 2008. it's an even worse idea today. we live in a complex world with complex threats. the ndaa before us will stop top to transfer terrorists on its way out the door. we don't need to close the

detention center, we need to assure the american people areht protected. passing legislation before us represents an important step in that direction. it will help position our military to confront the challenges of tomorrow. it will help support the men and women in harm's way today. i want to thank chairman mccain of the armed services committee on this very important bill and i thank you senator reid, the ranking member as well. >> assistant democratic leader. >> mr. president, do the math. a several prisoner held in a federal prison in america today cost us about $30,000 a year. the most serious and dangerous criminal prisoners held in the y federal prison system are put in supermax facilities for $86,000 a year. that's what it costs.

not a single prisoner has ever escaped from a supermax facility in the united states, ever. 30,000 for routine prisoners, 86,000 for the most dangerous. what does it cost us to incarcerate one detainee each year at guantanamo? $5million a piece. $5million for each detainee, the budget to keep gaun on the oom open is about $500 million a year and we have fewer than one hundred detainees there andn there's a request for another $200 million in construction at guantanamo. so when senators come to the floor and say we've got to keep guantanamo open for less fewer than a hundred detainees, you obviously have to ask the question, is there another place where they can be held just as

safely, just as securely and considerably less cost and the answer is obvious, the answer is clear, supermax prisons can hold anyone convicted of heinous crimes, can hold them securely without any fear of escape. and then the argument was made by the senator from kentucky, well, if we are going to put terrorists in prisons across america instead of guantanamo, t that is a danger to the community. really? i represent the state of illinois. we have the marion federal prison in southern illinois. you have a lot of good men and women that work there. you know what we are doing, for $30,000 a year we are holding convicted terrorists in the marion convicted prison. i've been a senator for illinois for 30 years, you know how many times i've received complaints,

none, not one. not one time. so for the symbol of maintaininf guantanamo we are going to continue to spend $5 million per detainee and this bill will continue that. taxpa so if you're looking to save some money, money that taxpayeri shouldn't be given to our government or perhaps should be spent in better ways, let's start with guantanamo. the president is right, if they are a danger to america and the world, they can be safely held in other prisons across the united states and a fraction of the costs of what we are spending at guantanamo. anyone who calls a fiscal conservative cannot ignore thatc obvious argument. let me say i support senator from new hampshire, it's a good provision. these men and women risk their lives for us, we need to standby

them and allow them to safely come to the united states and be in a position here where theyy can have peace of mind that they're not going to be killed because they're friends of america. i think her provision is a good one, i'm anous to support it. let me just say, i have an amendment that i consider to be very important. i've offered it over a week ago so members had more than enough time to take a look at it. i will describe it to you in simple terms instead of going into a long explanation. i certainly have one ready but it's basically this, within this bill, and it's a big bill, 2943, defense authorization act is o about $524 billion in spending for our department of defense. i want america to always be safe, always have the best and d want us to invest in the men and women of military because we believe in them and their families and our veterans. there's a provision in this bill, though, that troubles my greatly.

it's an effort to eliminate a program known as the congressionally research program. how big is this medical research program? it's $1.3 billion. it is less than two tenths of one percent of the total expenditure for the departmentin of defense. is it important? i think it's very important. for 25 years, the department of defense medical research has come through with breakthrough findings to eliminate concerns,o give hope to members of the military, their families and every one living across america. i remember when it started. i was a member of the house of representatives. it was 1992.ai one group came forward, the breast cancer coalition, and they said we need a reliable place to turn for a steadyt investment in breast cancer research.

and that's what started the program. it's true, the breast cancer is not limited to the military, but it is also true that there's a higher incidence of women in the military than regular population, a reason we don't understand. over the last 24, 25 years we've invested more than $3 billion in breast cancer research through this program. has it been worth it? >> i can tell you it has. through their research they developed a drug called heceptin, medical research developed drug to fight breast cancer, one of my colleagues told me this morning, the life of his wife was saved by this drug, receptin, i was in a press conference a few minutes ago, another woman came up to me and said, my life was saved.

that was a part of thet investment in the department of defense medical research program that paid off and i could go on and i will later about other investments that were paid offl not only for military familiesge but for all america. what is proposed in this bill is the largest cut in medical research since sequestration in congress.is we ask the defense of defense if the provisions of this bill that are being asked for are put in place, what impact will it have on medical research programs in the department of defense and they said it would effectively eliminate them. this proposal and this bill will swamp medical research programs with the department of defense with more red tape than they have ever seen. let me give you an example. this department of defense authorization bill calls for an annual audit of every entity applying for medical research

grants from the department of defense. the audit requirements are the same as the largest defense contractors in the united states. we have never held other entities, other than the largest defense contractors to these standards. it will require audits by the department of defense additional 2,400 audits a year. well, how about the agency that does the auditing? do they have extra personal, do they have work that needs to be done? well, it turns out they have $43 billion in existing contracts that have not been audited and this bill will pile on that 2,400 more audits. what will it do? it will slow down any effort to promote medical research and it will dramatically increase the overhead costs for that medical research. surely there must be some scandal in this program that led to the conclusion that we needed all this red tape? and the answer is no.

the scrutiny, investigation and other entities have found that this program over the years haso been a great program. it's had some mistakes but onlyh a handful and you look at the t thousands of medical grants research grants that have beendm given, so i'm going to ask forly an opportunity to offer this amendment to strike theesearc provisions which basically kill the department of defense medical research program that is directedly congressment we don't earmark what entities are going to get the grants, it's a pure review process but i want to make sure this amendment gets a vote and after that vote more than happy to move and i hope w can pass it at tend of the day. >> i yield the florida. >> senator from arizona. >> i assure the senator from illinois that we are trying to get the language of companion amendment to his amendment approved by that side of the' aisle so that we can move

forward with the senator of illinois' amendment and hopefully we can get that language as soon as possible so we can take up formal debate on his amendment. in the meantime, in response to the senator from illinois's comments, you know, mr. president, as i seen the latest polling data approval of congress is about 14%, something like that. i've not met anyone lately in the 14% that approved of congress. and one of the major reasons, of course, is because they believe that we have wasted their defense dollars by the billions, and wasted their taxpayers dollars by the billions. there's no greater example of the -- of what has happened with the so-called medical research. now every single one of he's dollars probably goes to a worthy cause. unfortunately about 90 to 95% of that money has nothing to do

with defense. now, why would the senator from illinois and so many overwhelming take the money that's earmarked for the men and women that are serving with the effects of sequestration causing our leadership in the military to say that we are on the ragged edge of our capability to defend the nation, that the marine corps and chief of staff of thef army are saying that we are putting lives of americans at greater risk because we don't have sufficient funding, so instead we are taking $2 billion out of defense money and putting it into programs that haveon nothing to do with defense. why is that? one would say why would congress take money from defense and put those moneys into programs that have nothing to do with defense?

mr. president, it's called the willy syndrome, the famous banke robbers asked why he robbed banks and he said that's where the money is.il that's exactly what we have here. we see the syndrome begin in 1992, in 1992 there was $25 million that were -- that were designated for medical research. that was 25 million in 1992. today we now are going to have almost last year the funding has increased by 4,000% from 25,000,092 to a billion dollars last year. if you've ever seen a graphic example of the willy syndrome, it has to be this. is there anyone who is oppose today breast cancer research?

is there anyone oppose for medical research for important challenges to the health of our nation? of course not, of course not. but what the senator from illinois and the appropriators have done year after year is exactly this. okay, here we go.e here is $200 million and here we are here. we -- reconstructive, food t allergies, cooperative epilepsy, clinical trial, pure review vision, on peer-reviewed alzheimer's, bone marrow failure, on and on, all of these are worthy causes, they have nothing to do with the defense of this nation. and that's the problem with this.bl

now, i will probably lose this vote, i will probably the senator from illinois will probably succeed because there's so many special interest that are involved here but don't say this is for defend of this nation, what it's all about is finding money from the largest single appropriations bill to put into causes that by all objective observers should be taken out of health and human service's account, but unfortunately there's not that money in the health and human services account, so guess what, take it out of defense, meanwhile we don't have enough troops trained, we don't have enough to pay for their deployment. in case you missed the stories about the squadron in south carolina where they are robbing parts from planes and come back with most of their aircraft not capable of flying, of only 2 of

our brigade combat teams are able to be in first category of readiness, only two because they don't have enough money for training and operations and maintenance, but we are going to take billions out and we are going to give it to autism, lung cancer, spinal, ovarian cancer. all of those are worthy causes and so now we've got lobbyist from all over the nation, they're going to take away the money from fill in the blank and they're all fired up and angry. i'm not trying to take the money from them, i'm saying the money should not come out of defense. i'm saying that defend this nation every single dollar is important to the men and women who are defending this nation and fighting and dying as we speak. so i congratulate the senator

from illinois as every year just about the money for medical research has gone up from an initial $25 million in 1992 to a billion dollars this year. a 4,000% increase. let me repeat, spending on medical research at dod, nearly 75% has nothing with the military and it's grown 4,000% l since 1992. and now we can talk to all the lobbyist that come in these fors the various, various and very important medical research projects and say, we took care of you, take care of them from where it should come, i say to the senator of illinois, which is not out of defending this nation. the late senator from state of alaska, tedd stevens under whose leadership under funding for breast cancer was added, said

the money would be going to quote, medical research instead of the needs of the military.ad during the floor debate on the annual defense appropriations bill, senator stevens had this to say and i quote, we could not have any more money going out of the defense bill to take care of medical research when medical research is basically a function of the nih. it is not our business. i confess, i am the one, i am supporting senator stevens now, i confess, i'm the one who made the first mistake years ago, i'm the one that suggested that we include money for breast cancer research, it since that time it has groan to $750 billion and had nothing to the with theor department of defense. i want to emphasize again, i will support funding for every single one of these projects, i

will support it when it comes out of the right account and not out of the backseat of the men and women who are serving this -- in the united states military. it has to stop. it has to stop. so this year, the ndaa prohibits the secretary of defense and the service secretaries from funding or conducting a medical research and development project unless they certify that the projectfo could protect, ens happens or restore the health and safety of the members of the armed forces and it requires the medical research projects are open to competition and comply with dod cost accounting standards. it doesn't seem to me that is an outrageous demand. i know my colleagues are going to come in, we need this money and vital.ng

i am all for that but don't take it away from the men and women who are serving this nation in uniform. that's what the senator from illinois' bill does. wasn't would think if this is so vital that the administration would request it. they haven't. they haven't. if this amendment passes and it will, i'm confident, if this amendment passes, $900 million will be taken away from military service members and their families. if this amendment passes, $900 million will not be use today provide a full 2.1% pay raise for our troops. it won't be used to halt dangerous reduction of the size of our army and marine corps.

it won't be use today buy equipment so that our airmen don't have the steal parts in airplanes in bone yard in arizona to keep the oldest, smallest, least air force in the history. many have opposed lifting arbitrary caps on defense unless more money available for nondefense needs. so -- so the senator from illinois, i get this straight, wants to add nearly a billion dollars for spending more medical research but is also opposed to increasing spending to a level of last year for defense spending. that's interesting. now, these caps still in place, now that we are going to try to fix later on in this bill, the senator wants to take nearly a billion dollars of limited defense fund to spend on nondefense needs. so i said to my colleague, the senator from illinois, it's note that he's wrong to support-

medical research, no one is attacking that because i can, guaranty you the first thing that senator from illinois is going to say, well, we are going to take this money from medical research. i'm not. i'm saying it shouldn't come from the backs of men and women who are serving this nation. so please, i would ask him not to say that because it is not the case. if he wants to add that money to health and human service's account, i will support the amendment. ly support it.t. i will speak in favor of it. he's proposed the wrong amendment to support medical research, instead of proposing to take $900 million from military service members, he should be proposing a way to begin the long overdue process of shifting the hundreds of millions of dollars of nonmilitary medical research spending out of the department of defense and into the appropriate civilian departments and agencies of our government. let me be clear again, this debate is not about the value of

this medical research or whether congress should support it. any person who has reached my age likely has firsthand experience with the miracles of modern medicine and gratitude to all that support it and i'm sure every senator understands the value of medical research to american suffering from these diseases to the families and friends that care for them and all those who know the pain and grief of losing a loved one, but this research does not belong in the department of defense. it belongs in civilian departments and agencies of our government.. so i say to my colleague, the ndaa focuses the department's research on medical research that will lead to life-savingme advancements in battlefield medicine and new recoveries and rehabilitation of wounded in the

battlefield both physical and mentally. we continue to put decision making about medical research in the hands of lobbyist and politicians instead of medical experts where it belongs. so -- so i say what's happening right now as we speak, phones are ringing off the hook, we need this money for fill in the blank, we have to have this money and it's the end of western civilization unless we get it. and i support every single one of these programs. there's not a single one that i wouldn't support funding for, but when you take it away from the men and women who are serving in the military for nonmilitary purposes, i say it is wrong.