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.

so i will be glad to have the vote as soon as the other side clears and our amendment process, but again, i ask myal colleagues don't distort thiso debate by saying we are trying to take away this medical esearch. what we are trying to say here t with the bill is that we are trying to do everything we can to take every defense dollar and make sure that we help the men and women who are serving in conflicts that are taking place throughout the world. we are not -- we are not the reason why it was adopted by the armed services committee against this funding, we are against where it is coming from. so let's -- so let's do t something a little courageous for a change around here. i let's take -- let's say new yorw city, we won't take this money out of defense but we will take it out of other accounts ofe which is under the responsibility of the united states senate and the congress of the united states. that's all i'm asking for.

that's all. but obviously it probably won'to happen because every advocate for every one of these programs is now been fired up because they've been told, they've been told that we are going to take away their money, we are note going to take away their money. we want their money coming from the right place and i would even support increases in some of this spending, but it's coming from the wrong place and as i said at the beginning of my remark, it's the willy syndrome from $25 million from 1992 all the way up here. tall way here. 4,000% increase. so i'm sure that senator after senator will come to the floor, we can't take away this money from fill in the blank, this is terrible for us to do this, it is not terrible for us to dodo

this, the right thing to do is not deprive men and women who are serving the military of a billion dollars that is badly needed for readiness, operations, to keep them safe and that is what this debate is really all about. i expect to lose it, and i congratulate the lobbyist ahead of time and i congratulate the senator from illinois ahead of time, but don't be surprised when the american people some day rice up against this process where we appropriate a billion dollars for something under the name, the national defense that has nothing to do with national defense . medical >> mr. president. this senator research. never. i'm please today report that we are marking up at this moment in subcommittee an increase of more

than 5% in funding for that important agency. but to argue that because we are putting money into national institutes of health we can take money away from the department m of defense ignores the obvious. we take money away from the department of defense medical research program at the expense of men and women in the military, their families and veterans. look at the example that senator of arizona used. he stood and pointed his chart, well, there's even spending here for epilepsy and seizures, why would that be, we have to spend money on military and issues. let's take a look, since the year 2000 more than 3,000 have m experienced traumatic brain injury. there are a few risks factors

that are known to guide decision making in diagnoses from treatment of the disease. according to to the american epilepsy society 50% of victims, military members exposed with penetrating head injury have fro developed post traumatic epilepsy. for the senator of arizona to point to this is to ignore the obvious. 300,000 of our men and women in uniform have suffered from traumatic brain injury and we know from past experience many of them end up with post traumatic ep acceptly, to argue that this medical research that is no application or value to members of the military is to basically ignore the obvious. what we have tried to do is is we cannot grant and all we can

do is suggest the department of defense areas that we think have relevance to military. they then have to make the their decision. each and over grant has to pass threshold requirement to their health. would you guess that prostate cancer is a major concern in tho military as opposed to the rest. of the population? you should.o why is it? is it exposure while they served? is there something we can do to spare families from this cancer by doing basic research? i'm not going to apologize for that nor the breast cancer commitment that's been made by this department of defense medical research program. the senator from arizona is correct, groups are coming to us and saying, this department of defense medical research is

absolutely essential, i just had a press conference with the breast cancer coalition, 3 million -- $3 billion have been invested in breast cancer research through the department of defense. as i said earlier, it lead to the development of new drug that saved lives. the drug saved lives. to argue that this is not money well spent, shouldn't be another category, didn't apply here. let's look beyond that. the list goes on and on. i could spend the next hour or more going through every single one of them. the senator from arizona's provision in his own bill isnt designed to eliminate the medical research programs that the department of defense, that's not my conclusion, it's the conclusion of the department of defense. he is put in so much red tape and so many obstacles and added

overhead and delay that he won't accomplish his goal. that would be a terrible outcome. a terrible outcome for people who are counting on this research, no apologizes, i'm for increasing the money at the national institute of health, w i've said that already and i'mhe for increasing money at the secretary of defense. money well spent and i might add, first let me acknowledge, my colleague from arizona has a distinguished career, a distinguished record serving the united states -- in our united states navy and we all know hisl heroic story, what he went through, so i'm not questioning his commitment to the military whatsoever.he veteran organizations and others standby my position on this issue, when we had the press conference earlier, it wasn't just the breast cancer coalition, disabled veterans of america were also there to defeat the provision.

for the good of these families, all of the members of these families in the military as well as veterans, let us now walk away from this fundamental research. >> mr. president.mr >> very briefly, i think the senator from illinois and i pretty well ventilated this issue and once we get in agreement on the votes, we could schedule a vote on it because i think we are very well aware of each other's positions. i have been talking about this issue for quite a period of time as i watch our defense spending go down and our, quote, medical research go up. senator from illinois' argument is that men and women in the military are subject to all ofng these various health challenges, ranging from arthritis toembersf

malfunctions because they're americans, because they're human beings, yes, we agree that they are subject to all of these program -- needs and earmarked for various illnesses that affect americans.se and again, i want to point out, and by the way, traumatic brain injury causes a whole lot of things, so to say that epilepsy is as a result of traumatic brain injury, there's all kinds of things that are result of tram -- traumatic brain injury. we know the terrible effects of that on our veterans. somehow to lump, there's at least on this list 50 difference diseases and medical challenges

connecting that all to defense is a leap of the imagination, is obviously ridiculous. it's ridiculous. so here we have all pan cre -- pancreatic, but it's not in the defense bill, it should not be taken out of defense money particularly in this period of need. so with the -- if the disabled american veterans and every veterans organization is told that they will not have funding for these programs, of course, they are going to object to this provision in the bill. but if they're told the truth and the truth is that they should get this money but it shouldn't be taken out of defense, most of these veterans would like to see it not taken i out of defense, they would like to see it taken out of where ite belongs.

and so as i say, i'm sure thatau there's press conference after press conference rallying all of these people because they're being told they won't get the funding, and i can understand that. that is not what this senator wants and what the america should have and that is the funding taken out of the accounts of which there is the responsibility of the various committees and subcommittees in congress and the appropriations committee. that's what this is all about. so all i can say is that as i predicted, the senator from illinois raises the issue of all of these things that will lose money. it's not they will lose money, they will get the money if you did the right thing in the appropriation committee, which is taking it out of the right accounts, and to stretch the imagination to say that all of these are because of the men and

women of the military is at best disingenuous, so -- >> mr. president, i ask for twof minutes.ra mr. president, the total amount for the department of defense medical research programs thaterer discussing amounts to less than two tenths of one percent and the senator from arizona is arguing we are wasting money that could otherwise be spent in more valuable ways.ryam we are not wasting money. we are investing in medical research programs that serve our military, their families and their veterans and i will never apologize for that. yes, the groups are upset because they have seen the progress that's been made with these investments, coordinating with the nih and they have done the right thing and found cures, they relieved problems and challenges facing our veterans. they put into the bill already

is going to have any negative medical research, let me quotecc the department of defense and what they said about the language from chairman mccain, quote, these changes bowled drastically delay the awards risking the timely obligation op funds, significantly increase the effort and cost for both recipients and the federal government with the additional audit services needed, documentation that recipients would be required to provide, changes to recipient'sw. accounting programs and the scientific programs would be severely impacted and moist -- most likely recipients would not want to do business with the department of defense. if the senator wanted to come and just say put an end to it,be it would be bold, it would be breath-taking but it would beor direct and honest. what he has done is to cover it in red tape. i'm in favor of research and not red tape.

there's no reason to kill off research for military veterans. i yield the floor. >> mr. president. >> senator from west virginia. >> i think i have presence,ccous mr. president. >> senator from arizona. >> mr. president, i want to say there's various accounts in the appropriations process that are directly related to the issues that have now been inserted in the department of defenses authorization bill. that is what this is all about and that's all it's all about and we can talk about all of the -- all of the compelling needs and the terrible stories of people who have been afflicted by these various injuries and challenges to their health, but the fact is it's coming from the wrong place and that's what this is all about, mr. president, i yield the floor. >> the question for us in congress is whether we have given every possible tool to defeat this threat.pa

i do not believe we have which is high i've introduced the patriot terrorist act. over the years numerous americans like padilla, just to name a few have abandoned their country and their fellow citizens to go abroad and to join radical islamic terrorist q groups. intelligence officials estimate 250 americans have tried or succeeded in traveling to syria and iraq to join isis or other terrorist groups in the region. this amendment updates the expatriot statute so that americans travel abroad to fight with radical islamist terrorist can relinquish their citizenship. this allows us to preempt any attack, preempt any entry into the country and launch attacks on other americans who otherwise

hide behind citizenship. it would be foolish to allow known terrorists, radical islamic terrorists, those affiliated with al-qaeda and other groups to travel back to the united states of america using a passport to carry out jihad and murder innocent americans. this legislation should be bipartisan, this legislation should be legislation that brings all of us together. we might disagree on questions of marginal tax rate as democrats and republicans, we might disagree on a host of policy issues, but when it comes to the simple question, should an islamic terrorist intent on killing americans be allow today use a u.s. passport to travel freely and come to america, that answer should be no. and that ought to be an issue of great agreement. today i call upon my colleagues in supporting these amendments and coming together, together these amendments strengthen our

nation both at home and abroad. we are stronger than the obstacles we face.th and by the grace of god, we will succeed, the stakes are too high to quit. and we will stand together and continue to strengthen, this exceptional nation, the shining city on a hill that each and every one of us love. i yield the floor. >> i hope that the senator from texas who made a moving commentary would consider in the future voting for the defense authorization bill rather thanmm voting against it and standing together, we stood together on the committee with only three votes against the defense authorization bill and he voted against it last year as well. so i would look forward to working with the senator from texas and maybe getting instead of him being one or two in the bipartisan effort of the committee to be voting for the

defense authorization bill and i might tell him also that with his agent as he described it, ie would be much more agreeable tof considering that agenda if he would consider voting for the defense of this nation, which is that thick, which we worked for months and months with hearingsl and meetings and gatherings and he decides to vote against the authorization bill. i so i look forward working with him and perhaps next time he might consider voting for it rather than being one of three out of 27 who voted for it in a bipartisan fashion which i'm very proud. >> absence of a quorum. [roll call] >> i ask unanimous consent to initiate the quorum call. is there objection?

>> i would briefly respond to my friend from arizona as he is aware, this ndaa contains one provision that in the history of our country is a radical departure, this ndaa for the first time ever would subject women to selective service and potentially the draft. now, was this change done through open debate? was this change done in front of the american people? was this change done reflecting their views? no, it was inserted by committee staff and committee draft and it is a radical change that isghte. attempting to be on american people. i'm the father of two daughters, women can do what they want to and i see this each and every day. we leave this recorded portion to take you live now as the senate has returned to session, live on c-span2

the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: i thank the distinguished presiding officer. what is our parliament situation? the presiding officer: the senate is considering s. 2943. mr. leahy: i would ask to continue for seven minutes as though in morning business. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. leahy: i thank the chair. madam president, i want to speak based on my experience over the years as a member of the senate

judiciary committee, as the ranking member, as the chairman of it on something very troubling that's happened. many senators in both parties have appropriately condemned the racist comments recently made by the republican party's presumptive presidential nominee about judge curiel. and sadly these baseless allegations he's made against a distinguished federal judge come as no surprise. we have seen for months that personal insults are the calling card of the republican standard-bearer, but i would say this. similar to what many in both parties have said, anyone seeking the highest office in this great nation has to understand the fundamental role

judges play in our democracy. the rule of law protects all of us, only when administered by an independent judiciary. i am deeply troubled by this attack on a sitting federal judge. but make no mistake, it's not the first nor will it be the last republican attack on the independence of our federal judiciary. this may be the most extreme example, but it's just the latest and sadly just the latest in a series of republican accidents that seek to undermine and compromise a co-equal branch of government. for more than seven years, senate republicans have tried to block judicial nominations through stalling and delay. they have even distorted the records of the men and women nominated to serve on the federal bench. and the systematic -- it has been systematic -- obstruction has hurt courts across the

country. but i'm not -- it's not just the courts i'm worried about. it's the american people who go to those courts seeking justice. judicial vacancies have soared under the republican leadership. even though we have dozens of nominations that have bipartisan support and are languishing on the senate floor. and then earlier this year the senate republicans took their obstructionism a totally unprecedented step further. within an hour of the just of -- news of justice scalia's passing, the nominee had the unilateral refusal to have anyone confirmed to the supreme court until the following year. he was saying this in february. it was an extraordinarily partisan decision and there was no precedent for it in the united states, either under democratic or republican leadership.

since confirmation hearings began a century ago, never, never has the senate denied a supreme court nominee a hearing. and recently two law professors extensively analyzed the history of the supreme court. they conclude there is no historical precedent for this refusal to consider chief judge garland's nomination. in fact, according to the report, there have been 103 prior times in history where elected presidents filled a supreme court vacancy prior to the election of the next president and has done so with the advice and consent of the senate. 103 times. the republicans' unprecedented obstruction threatens to damage the appointment process in the future and risks significant harm to the court. the senate republican leadership has chosen to put the functioning of our highest court in jeopardy for more than a year. that is a partisan attack on the one independent part of our

government that should be above partisanship, this partisan attack on an independent judicial system that is more -- that means there is more that americans need to understand. because when the dust settles on this latest series of provocative accusations by the republican standard-bearer, i hope the american people remember what this says about his disrespect for the rule of law. what it says about his disrespect for our justice system. what it says about how he will treat those who may disagree with him, and what it says about those who fail to hold him accountable. our founders understood what this great nation needs in an independent judiciary. they designed our courts to be insulated from the political whims of the moment. they designed our judiciary to serve as a check on the political branches including on the power of the president.

can you imagine a future president who does not respect the role that judges play? a president who thinks that judges should be disqualified from doing their jobs simply based on their race or their gender? for the good of the country, i call on our republican friends stop diminishing our independent federal judiciary. it's too important to be treated like an election year pawn. our federal courts from the supreme court all the way down deserve to be at full strength. the senate needs to treat fairly the dozens of nominees before us, all of whom have earned bipartisan support. it is not fair to attack sitting judges for political gain when they can't even respond to the attacks. it is also not fair to make allegations against judges whose

nominees cannot -- who as nominees cannot respond because they refuse to have a public hearing. if the republican leaders of this body want to distinguish themselves from the rhetoric of the campaign trail, then they should change course here in the senate. actions speak louder than words. they should allow judge garland a hearing. they should also allow an up-or-down vote on the 22 judiciary nominees would have been reported favorably by the senate judiciary committee instead of sitting here waiting a vote. the american people deserve leaders who respect and support our federal courts, who have the courage to take action. let me state it from a personal point, madam president. i remember as though it was yesterday, the day i stood before the vermont supreme court, took my oath as the

newest lawyer in vermont, and i was the youngest lawyer in the state of vermont. i was very conscious of that, being the youngest and the newest. but i remember the senior partner of our law firm, the law firm i was working at. he was a conservative republican well known throughout the state. as a young lawyer he told me, do the best job you can. always tell the truth, but you don't criticize the judges. you might not like the decisions. you can always appeal it. maybe you'll win. maybe you lose. but protect the integrity of our courts. they are above politics. they should not be brought into it. and, frankly, the attacks

against a judge born in indiana, a man who has defended our constitution, the people of this country even when his life was threatened, to attack him, to make racist comments about him, to demean the courts, to demean our system of judiciary, our federal system, the best in the world, it made my skin crawl. it was wrong. i hope that all of us in both parties will stans above that and protect the -- stand above that and protect the integrity of our federal judiciary. madam president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: i ask that we dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. president. first i would ask unanimous consent that two fellows in my office be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the senate consideration of the ndaa. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. president. i'd ask consent to speak about

my amendment number 4299. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. president. not a lot of americans know this, but we are at war in the middle east as part of a saudi-led coalition in the middle of a very dangerous and catastrophic war inside yemen. the saudi-led campaign inside yemen began on march 26, 2015. the houthis, a group within yemen, had captured the capital in september of 2014, and the saudi-led campaign, of which the united states is a member, is intended to push the houthis out of the capital. the war has been absolutely devastateing, from both a humanitarian perspective and a

u.s. national security perspective, and i have offered an amendment that i'm not going to call up right now but i may later in the proceedings with senator paul that would place some very reasonable conditions on the u.s. participation in this coalition and in particular on the u.s. transfer of munitions to saudi arabia in order to continue this campaign. so what is the status of this civil war inside yemen today? well, first of all, as i mentioned, it's been an absolute humanitarian disaster. you have 3,000 civilians that have died. you have over 6,000 total that are dead. and you have 80% of yemen's population that right now is wholly dependent on international humanitarian relief because they don't have adequate food, water or medical

care. the capital, sana, has been without electricity or running water for over a year. the capital of this country has had no electricity, no running water for over a year, almost the entirety of the population of an entire country, yemen, is now dependent on international humanitarian aid in order to subsist.. during this time, the u.n. has documented 101 attacks on yemeni schools and hospitals, 48 of which were attributed to this coalition led bombing campaign that the united states is a part of. hundreds and hundreds of health facilities have closed due to the damage and lack of fuel for generators, supplies and shortage of medical personnel. and there have been multiple reports of cluster bombs, u.s.-made cluster bombs being

used in or near civilian populations. now, the united states has enabled this campaign. it would not happen without u.s. participation. there would not be a saudi-led bombing campaign in yemen without the united states. why? well, first of all, it's billions of dollars in u.s. weapons and u.s. munitions that are being dropped, including those cluster bombs inside yemen. and it is our intelligence that's providing the basis, the foundation for all of the targeting that's being done. you can argue that the targeting has been dramatically insufficient given the number of civilian casualties but there would be little way for the saudis to do targeting at all without u.s. intelligence. and it's air force central command that has formed 709 air-to-air refueling sorties

offering 26 million pounds of fuel to coalition aircraft. it's american refueling missions that allow for the coalition planes to fly. so the united states is an indispensable part of this coalition. thus, the united states is at war inside yemen today, and very few people are talking about it. but we should because in addition to a u.s. and saudi-led coalition resulting in the death of thousands of civilians inside yemen, this war is in direct contravention with u.s. national security interests. first, the damage done to u.s. credibility in the region and amongst muslim populations when it is our bombs that are killing civilians should be obvious to all of us. if you talk to yemeni americans, they will tell you that in yemen this isn't a saudi bombing

campaign. this is a u.s. bombing campaign. every single civilian death inside yemen today is attributable to the united states. we accept that as a consequence of our participation in this campaign. but, second, this coalition has made a very purposeful decision to target the houthis instead of targeting terrorist groups like aqap which have used this civil war to expand their base of operation. the coalition has made a very purposeful decision to target the houthis instead of targeting isis which had virtually no footprint in yemen before this bombing campaign and now is growing by the day. here's what the state department's annual counterterrorism report released last week said about the civil war inside yemen. aqap benefited during 2015 from the conflict in yemen by

significantly expanding its presence in southern and eastern governance. the group was able to increase its recruiting and expand its safe haven in yemen. it also insinuated itself among multiple factions on the ground which has made it more difficult to counter. i almost want to read that again because what our own counterterrorism report has told us is that the u.s. intervention in yemen has resulted in the dramatic growth, in the strength of aqap, an element of al qaeda, a named enemy of the united states, and we don't have a resolution which commits the united states to war against the houthis. we've never given the administration the power to fight a war against the houthis. we have given the administration the power to fight against al qaeda. inside yemen there are the

houthis and there is al qaeda, a u.s.-led campaign -- excuse me. a saudi-led campaign with participation from the united states is fighting the houthis, not a named enemy of the united states, while ignoring, largely ignoring aqap, which has grown in scale and scope. the state department further affirms that aqap and isil have -- quote -- "carried out hundreds of attacks in yemen last year including suicide bombings, car bombings, kidnappings, assassinations, et cetera, "so why are we doing this? why is the united states relatively quietly facilitating a saudi-led bombing campaign in yemen which is in con havetraven to security interests?

one, as a consequence of the iran nuclear agreement we have to push back on iranian influence in and around the region. there is a direct connection between the houthis and the iranians. there is a link. and there are going to be times, mr. president, where i would support u.s. efforts to push back on iranian influence in the region. but in this instance there is, a, an indirect connection between the houthis and the iranians. and, b, all sorts of damage done to u.s. credibility and national security interests by participating in this coalition in the way that we are today. the second argument is that if the united states wasn't involved, the targeting would be even worse. there wouldn't be 3,000 civilian deaths. there would be 20,000 civilian deaths in the united states wasn't helping. that may be true but that's not much of an argument to be involved in the civil war because that would be an invitation to be involved in every single conflict on each

side because u.s. intelligence and targeting could always mean less civilians could be killed but the fact of the matter is it's likely that saudi arabia wouldn't be engaged in this bombing campaign at all if it weren't for u.s. support. and so, i think it's time for this body to do some oversight on a conflict that has been raging for over a year with billions of u.s. dollars at stake. and the consequence being the dramatic increase of the power of terrorist organizations who have plots against the united states. remember, aqap is the most lethal and most dangerous element of al qaeda when it comes to potential threats directly to the u.s. army. it is aqap. that sits at the pinnacle of al

qaeda's potential ability to strike the united states. and yet this congress has remained almost completely silent as a bombing campaign funded and orchestrated in part by the united states has allowed for aqap to get stronger. god forbid that aqap is successful in attacking the united states and they do it from a base in yemen that was made possible by u.s.-paid for and directed bombs that dropped on that country. now the white house, i think, has recently recognized the danger here of continuing along this same pace. there are reports that the white house recently placed a hold on a pending arms transfer of u.s.-origin cluster munitions to saudi arabia over concerns about their use in yemen in areas inhabited by civilians. but we've got to do our due diligence and our oversight as well. if we're really serious about

upholding our article 1 responsibilities to oversee the foreign policy of this nation, then we've got to add some conditions as well. so the amendment that i have helped author to the ndaa would place two pretty simple conditions on our support for the saudi-led coalition. importantly, my amendment doesn't prohibit the united states from continuing to fund this effort. if i had my druthers, i certainly would argue that we at least take a pause, but i understand that the consensus may not be here in this body to temporarily or permanently halt our support for this campaign. and so, all i'm suggesting is that we place effectively two conditions, two conditions on our financial support and logistical support for this campaign inside yemen.

one, that the saudi-led coalition make a commitment that it is doing everything necessary to reduce civilian casualties, and they are conducting this campaign in concert with humanitarian, international humanitarian law. can't really figure out why anybody would oppose that. let's just say if we're going to fund this bombing campaign that those that we are funding make a commitment to try to kill less civilians instead of more civilians. second, that those in the coalition make a commitment to use u.s. support to fight terrorist groups. al qaeda and isis. instead of just fighting the houthis. the united states isn't at war with the houthis. we haven't declared war on that group. we have declared war on al qaeda, and al qaeda is growing in its lethality, influence and territorial control inside yemen. second condition as contemplated by our amendment is to simply have the president certify as a

condition of continued support for the bombing campaign that the coalition is fighting terrorist groups alongside the houthis. i think if i had 100 different individual conversations with members of the senate, i can't imagine there would be a lot of objection because of course we want to fight terrorism. of course that's our priority, not the houthis. of course we want to do everything possible to reduce civilian casualties. and so i'm grateful to senator mccain and senator senator reedd also senator cardin and senator corker who has some jurisdiction here that they're willing to look at this amendment. i'm not offering it today because i know we're constructing ways to make the language acceptable to the chair and to the ranking member. but i guess i -- and, mr. president, with a plea for us to get back in the game when it comes to the oversight of our, of this administration's foreign policy, in particular in places like yemen.

i mean, we've been out, you know, out to lunch when it comes to authorizations of military force for a long time. but there's no authorization right now to fight isis, but we're doing it. there's a decade-old authorization to fight al qaeda that we should renew. and if we're going to be involved in spending all of this money and all of this time putting our soldiers and airmen at risk in the yemen campaign, then we should authorize that too. and if we don't authorize it, then the administration shouldn't do it. so this is not an authorization that i'm proposing. it's just simply a couple commonsense conditions, and i hope we can find a pathway to get a vote on this amendment. and i hope that this body has the courage in the future to step up and call a spade a spade and do our constitutional duty, perform our constitutional responsibility to provide

oversight on foreign policy by this administration and future administrations. thank you very much, mr. president. i yield the floor. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

balanced battled mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. ms. baldwin: thank you, mr. president. it is no secret -- the presiding officer: the senate in a quorum call. ms. baldwin: i ask that the quorum call be disbanded. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. baldwin: thank you, mr. president. it is no secret that we are living in a dangerous time and we face a variety of threats to our security at home and abroad. we all agree that we need to make investments in a strong military to protect and defend our national security. we have also come together in agreement on the need to take on our national security challenges

and our challenges here at home in a balanced way. the bipartisan budget agreement that we passed into law last year was far from perfect, but it provided much-needed certainty for our economy by preventing the on-going threats of a government default or a government shutdown. it restored investments in both our national and our economic security, ensuring that every dollar of investment in defense was matched by a dollar of investment in a stronger economy and a stronger middle class. a balanced approach has served us well. it was a necessary compromise grounded in fairness that should guide our bipartisan work going forward. i understand that the chairman

would like to give the defense department $18 billion more than they currencely have from the -- currently have from the american taxpayers. but i also know that the american people need stronger investments in the challenges that they face each and every day just trying to get ahead. if we're going to spend more on our military, then it's only fair that we also invest more in education, in job training, and workforce readiness to raise incomes and create a stronger economy for all. if we're going to spend more on the pentagon, then it's only fair we also invest more in putting people to work, rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and transportation and water infrastructure. i also know that we have

unfinished business in the congress to bolster our vulnerable cybersecurity infrastructure and to boost t.s. asecurity and to better -- t.s.a. security and to better support our law enforcement needs. we also have a responsibility to act on the public health crisis posed by zika. we simply must do more and approve the necessary funding to prevent, detect and respond to this serious and dangerous threat. and we need to provide relief to the people in flint, michigan, who are still suffering from the impacts of lead contamination. i understand the military has asked for more helicopters and more fighter jets, but i also know that the american people need washington to be stronger partners in the fights that we are confronting in communities

across our country today. that's why i am pleased to support senator reed's amendment to invest $18 billion to help our middle class to keep our country safe and to respond to the zika virus and lead contamination and heroin and opioids and the crisis that we are facing with drug abuse throughout our nation. as i've traveled wisconsin, it is clear that we face an opioid and heroin epidemic, and i know that many of my colleagues here in the senate face that same crisis in their home states. in wisconsin, it is a big problem and it demands a bold response from washington. we are in the midst of a crisis that is touching far too many

across our state. i have heard stories from family members who have tragically lost loved ones to addiction. and i've heard from people who are on the path of recovery. at one of my community meetings, a father came up to me to courageously share a story of tragically losing his youngest son to addiction a couple of years ago right after christmas. recently i heard from leonard from colfax, wisconsin, whose grandson was killed in a car accident when he was just 16 years old. the driver of the other car was under the influence of heroin at the time. i've also heard from a mother from south milwaukee whose son suffered from addiction for 20

years. while he is now in recovery, at one point she found him unconscious from a heroin overdose on their bathroom floor. another mother from lugun ago wrote to tell me her own son's life was saved by a paramedic who administered nalaxone allowing him to survive. the message is clear, families can't afford to wait any longer for help from washington. it should easier for wisconsinites to get their hands on opioids or heroin than it is for them to get treatment for addiction. as we consider today increasing our spending for the military, let us not forget american law

enforcement, first responders, health care providers, and citizens fighting on the front lines to combat our opioid and heroin crisis. let us not forget those struggling to get sober and to stay healthy. as communities continue to confront this epidemic on a daily basis, washington needs to step up and needs to be a strong partner with state and local and nonprofit efforts. the first place we can start is by making emergency investments for prevention, crisis intervention, treatment and recovery efforts. i was proud to support bipartisan legislation that provides this funding because these resources are vital as we continue to respond to this national emergency. unfortunately, this funding was

blocked by congressional republicans. this epidemic knows no political party, and it should be an issue that unites us all. we must do more because fighting this nationwide epidemic is a shared responsibility. everyone has a role to play in addressing this crisis, and congress should be no exception. the communities we represent need the resources necessary to win this fight. i know from talking to people i work for in wisconsin that the opioid and heroin epidemic is a problem that neither law enforcement nor the health care system can tackle alone. the federal government can't solve this problem by itself, just as we can't expect state and local communities to address it by themselves.

together -- together we must continue our fight and rise to this challenge. let's work together to help our communities recover from this epidemic and stay healthy. the senate will soon vote on the reed amendment. this amendment would provide $1.1 billion to respond to the opioid and heroin crisis. the amendment would invest a total of $18 billion, equal to the amount of funding that my republican colleague, chairman mccain, is proposing to spend on the department of defense. the vote is about fairness and priorities. i believe that if we're going to

provide more funding to the pentagon, we should also invest in our middle class, ensure our security here at home and step up to the plate and provide the resources americans need to respond to the serious emergencies that they face here at home. mr. president, i yield back, and i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. paul: mr. president, i have eight unanimous requests for committees to meet during today's session -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. paul: i ask consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. paul: i eight unanimous requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. theaft prawfl of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president, on monday, i came to the floor to speak about the important provisions of the ndaa. sweeping reforms to the organization of the department of defense, to the defense acquisition system and to the military health system. but i noted that there was one challenge the armed services committee could not address in the ndaa.

the dangerous mismatch between growing worldwide threats and arbitrary limits on defense spending in current law. this mismatch has very real consequences for the thousands of americans who are serving in uniform and sacrificing on our behalf all around the nation and the world. from afghanistan to iraq and syria, from the heart of europe to the seas of asia, our troops are doing everything we ask of them, but for too long we in congress have failed to do everything we can for them. shamefully, our military is being forced to confront growing threats with shrinking resourc resources. this year's defense budget is more than $150 billion less than fiscal year 2011 before the budget control act imposed arbitrary caps on defense spending. over the last five years as our milita