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 military has struggled under the

threat of sequestration, the world has only grown more complex and dangerous. since 2011, we have seen russian forces invade ukraine, the emergence of the islamic state and its global campaign of terrorism, increased attempts by iran to destabilize u.s. allies and partners in the middle east, growing assertive behavior by china and the militarization of the south china sea, numerous cyber attacks on u.s. industry and government agencies, and further testing by north korea of nuclear technology and other advanced military capabilities. indeed, the director of national intelligence james clapper testified to the armed services committee in february that over the course of his distinguished five-decade career, he could not recall, and i quote, "a more diverse array of challenges and crises than our nation confronts

today." the bipartisan budget act of 2015 or b.b.a. provided our military service members with much needed relief from the arbitrary caps on defense spending in the budget control act. the b.b.a. was a credit to the congressional leadership and many of us supported it as a necessary compromise that provided our military with vital resources for fiscal year 2016, but was more constrained in the resources it could provide for fiscal year 2017. the fact remains that despite periodic relief from the budget caps that have imposed these cuts, including the b.b.a., each of our military services remains underfunded, undersized, and unready to meet current and future threats. by the end of this fiscal year, the marine corps will be reduced

to 182,000 marines, even as the commandant of the marine core jeneller test -- general neller testified last year that the opt mall force i is facing a shortae of eight amphibian ships. the marine corps has been forced to examine options. in a recent news report revealed the crisis in marine corps aviation. years of budget cuts have left us with a marine corps that is too small and has too few aircraft. the aircraft it does have are too old and can barely fly. and only by cannibalizing parts from other aircraft, pilots cntsz train and receive fewer flight hours a month than their chinese and russian counterparts. young marines are working around the clock to keep planes in the air with shrinking resources, knowing that if they fail, their

comrades flying and riding in knows aircraft -- those aircraft could pay a fatal price. another news report showed what it really means to have the oldest, small etion, and least -- smallest and least ready air force in history as our nation now does. the service is short. 700 pilots and 4,000 maintainers for its fleet which is smaller than its mission requirement and lacks the spare parts it needs to keep flying. itit's so bad that airmen are stealing parts from retired aircraft in the bone yard in my home state of arizona. and even museum pieces just to get their planes back into combat. our aircraft are aging but even worse, our airmen are left -- quote -- "burnt out and exhausted." this is the predictable consequence of years of relentless operational tempo

combined with misguided reductions in defense spending. today less than 50% of the air force's combat squadrons are ready for full spectrum operations. the air force does not anticipate a return to full spectrum readiness for another decade. and this will only grow worse as budget cuts force the air force to retire more aircraft than it procures. the story is similar in the army. the army has been reduced by a hundred thousand soldiers since 2012 bringing the army to a size that army chief of staff mark milly testified has put the army at -- quote -- "high military risk." as the size of the army has shrunk, readiness has suffered. just one-third of army brigade combat teams are ready to deploy and operate decisively.

indeed, just two, just two of the army's 60-brigade combat teams are at the highest level of combat readiness. to buy readiness today, the army is being forced to mortgage its future readiness and capability by reducing in strength and delaying modernization programs. and the result of budget cuts forced reductions in declining readiness is clear. in an unforeseen contingency general milly testified in march that the army risked not having ready forces available to provide flexible options on our national leadership. and most importantly the risks incurring significant increased u.s. casualties. i repeat significantly increased u.s. casualties. u.s. casualties are the men and

women who are serving. by any measure, the flight of -- the fleet of 272 ships in the navy today is too small to address critical security challenges. even with recent shipbuilding increases, the navy will not achieve its current requirement of 3,3 -- 308 ships till 2021. and there's no plan to meet the bipartisan national defense panel's unanimous recommendation for a fleet of between 323 and 346 ships. a shrinking fleet operating at a higher tempo has forced difficult trade-offs. extended deployments have taken a heavy toll on our sailors, ships and aircraft and the navy is no longer able to provide constant carrier presence in the middle east or the western pacific. in short, as threats grow and

the operational demands on our military increase, defense spending and constant dollars is decreasing. the president's defense budget is $17 billion less than what the department of defense planned for last year. in order to make up for that shortfall, the military was forced to cut things it needs right now. army fighting vehicles, air force fighters, navy ships, marine corps helicopters, and critical training and maintenance across the services. as a result, the military services unfunded requirements total nearly $23 billion for the coming fiscal year alone. and then there's massive and growing defense bill that we keep pretending does not exist. over the next five years, the department of defense says it needs a minimum of $100 billion above the budget control act

caps on defense spending. add to that nearly $30 billion in base budget requirements that are currently hiding in the emergency account for contingency operations or oco. put simply, according to our own department of defense and our own military leaders, our nation needs an additional quarter of a trillion dollars over the current budget control act caps over the next five years just to execute the current defense strategy, a strategy that i think many of us would agree is not doing enough to address the many global threats we face. my colleagues, we are fooling ourselves, and we are misleading the american people about the true costs of defending our nation. this makes no sense and it's

time to put a stop to this madness. that is what my amendment would begin to do. this amendment would increase defense spending by $18 billion. these additional resources would be used to restore military capabilities that were cut from the president's defense budget request, address unfunded requirements identified by military commanders, especially those aimed at restoring readiness in the military services and support national security priorities consistently identified by military leaders and defense experts in testimony and briefings before the senate armed services committee. this amendment would increase the pay raise for our troops to 2.1%. the president's budget request sets pay raises at 1.6% which would make this the fourth year in a row that pay raises for our troops were below inflation. our troops deserve better.

and if this amendment passes, a 2.1% pay raise would match the employment cost index and keep pace with private sector wage growth. this amendment prioritizes restoring military readiness. over the past five years, the combination of expanding threats, high operational tempo, budget cuts, shrinking forces, and aging equipment have created a growing readiness crisis in our military. indeed, of the $23 billion in unfunded requirements identified by the military services, almost $7 billion were directly related to readiness. the ndaa took a first step in addressing these requirements by redirecting about $2 billion in targeted savings toward improving readiness. my amendment would add an additional $2.2 billion to help

alleviate the readiness crisis and mitigate the growing risk posed to the lives of our service members. this amendment would stop misguided cuts to the size of our military that are based on outdated assumptions about the world, cuts to the size of the army, for example, were set in motion before the russian invasion of ukraine and the rise of isil. there is simply no strategic logic to continuing these cuts now and placing a dangerous burden on the backs of our soldiers. that's why the amendment cancels the planned reduction of 15,000 active army soldiers. it also restores in strength in the navy, marine corps and air force as well as the national guard and reserve. the amendment also prevents cutting a tenth carrier air wing. our military confronts and ongoing strike fighter shortfall which is especially severe in

the navy. in a readiness crisis across aviation in the services. this amendment would begin reversing this dangerous trend by increasing the aircraft procurement, including 14fa-18 super hornets and 11f-35 joint strike fighters. the amendment also accelerates navy shipbuilding to mitigate a looming funding crunch in the next decade. my amendment provides the balance of funding necessary to fully fund an additional arley burke class destroyer and replaces fund for a third combat ship in the next fiscal year. this amendment supports the recommendations of the national commission on the future of the u.s. army. in order to support combat aviation across the total army, including the guard and reserve, the amendment includes funding for 36 additional uh-60 blackhawks and 17 luhlakotas,

chinooks and h-64 helicopters. it also includes advanced procurement funding for ten more apaches. despite the fact that our troops are still in harm's way in afghanistan where the taliban is making steady gains and isil is now present on the battlefield, the president's budget request funds less than two-thirds of the current level of u.s. forces in afghanistan. both republicans and democrats on the armed services committee have recognized that u.s. troop levels in afghanistan should be based on conditions on the ground. that's why this amendment provides full funding for the current level of 9,800 troops in afghanistan to help our afghan partners preserve the gains of the last 15 years and take the fight to terrorists who seek to destabilize the region and

attack american interests. the amendment supports the european reassurance initiative by modernizing 14m1 abrams tanks and bradley fighting vehicles for deployment to eastern europe to deter russian aggression. the amendment also provides vital support for our allies and partners. my amendment provides $150 million in security assistance for the ukrainian people to defend themselves against vladimir putin a's aggression. it also provides an additional $320 million for the israeli missile defense programs, including cooperative programs with u.s. industry in order to protect one of our closest allies from a growing missile threat. in short, my amendment gives our troops the resources, training and equipment they need and deserve to rise to the challenge of a more dangerous world. i would also add one important

fact about this amendment. whatever some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may say, this amendment is completely compliant with last year's budget agreement, the bipartisan budget act. that legislation set binding spending caps on defense and nondefense discretionary spending, but the b.b.a. set what the congressional research service called nonbinding target levels of funding for overseas contingency operations or o.c.o. in other words, the b.b.a. gave congress the flexibility to increase o.c.o. spending to meet current and future threats if it saw fit. there is no doubt this additional spending is needed and this amendment provides it in full compliance with last year's budget agreement. that said, i understand that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe we also need increases in

nondefense spending. that's why the senator from rhode island has introduced a second-degree amendment that would add $18 billion in nondefense spending. this amendment has some laudable programs. i have long said national security is not just the department of defense. i agree that we should provide additional funding for the department of homeland security, the f.b.i. and the coast guard. i would have added the c.i.a. and some of our other intelligence agencies, but i do not believe there is any national security justification for adding billions in taxpayer dollars to a defense bill to pay for infrastructure, national parks, affordable housing programs or agricultural research. while the senate may not reach full agreement on the senator from rhode island's amendment, what i believe his amendment does show is that we all agree our military needs the additional resources my amendment provides.

i do not know whether the senator from rhode island's amendment will succeed or fail, but if it does fail, my democratic colleagues will be left to answer a question simple. will you vote to give our military service members the resources, training and equipment that they need and deserve? this vote will be that simple. let's be clear what voting no would mean. let's be clear what voting no would mean. voting no would be a vote in favor of another year where the pay for our troops does not keep pace with inflation or private sector averages. voting no would be a vote in favor of cutting more soldiers and marines at a time when the operational requirements for our nation's land forces from the middle east and africa to europe and asia are growing. voting no would be a vote in favor of continuing to shrink the number of aircraft that are

available to the air force, navy and marine corps at a time when they are already too small to perform their current missions and are being forced to cannibalize their own fleets to keep our nation's pilots flying at far higher risk. voting no would be a vote in favor of letting arbitrary budget caps set the timelines for our mission in afghanistan instead of giving our troops and our afghan partners a fighting chance at victory. in short, voting no is a vote in favor of continuing to ask our men and women in uniform to perform more and more tasks with inadequate readiness, inadequate equipment, inadequate number of people and unacceptable levels of risk to their missions and their -- and themselves. this is unfair, and it is wrong,

it is wrong. for the sake of the men and women in our military who are putting their lives on the line as we speak to defend this nation, i hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will make the right choice. for five years, for five years, we have let politics, not strategy, determine what resources we give our military service members, and if we keep doing this, our military commanders have warned us that we risk sending young americans into a conflict for which they are not prepared. i know that the vast majority of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle recognize the mistakes of the past five years have created this danger. this is the reality. our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are facing, and it is our urgent, solemn task to confront it. so i say to my colleagues,

republican and democrat alike, it doesn't have to be this way. we don't have to tolerate this anymore. let's top allowing politics to divide us when we should be united in support of our military service members. let's begin charting a better course here today, one that's worthy of the service and sacrifice of those who volunteer to put themselves in harm's way on our behalf. let's pass this amendment to give our service members the support they need and deserve, and in so doing let us do our duty. mr. president, i know there are speakers on this amendment. i hope they will come to the floor to discuss those amendments so that we can set a time hopefully this afternoon if not tomorrow to -- on this amendment and the second-degree

amendment by the senator from rhode island. mr. president, i yield the floor. ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i rise in support of the reed-mikulski amendment to respond to threats to our nation by raising the caps for both defense and nondefense spending. all agree that we must defend the security of the united states, so many argue a we need more money for d.o.d. even though d.o.d. already consumes 50% of all discretionary spending. quick tutorial on the federal budget. discretionary spending is $1 trillion. the two other big expenditures are interest on the debt and funds, the trust funds particularly for earned benefits

like social security and medicare. but the discretionary spending, what we can decide to spend, of that $1 trillion, $500 billion goes to defense. now, we all know we're under some pretty big threats. we have fought a 15-year war. our men and women deserve the best training, the best challenge and the support for themselves and their families. i don't argue that, but i just want people who like to say i'm a numbers guy, let them know what the numbers are. now, i take the position we need to make sure that our national security is what it should be, but i argue that not all of national security is in the department of defense. there are clear and present dangers to the people of the

united states that are met by other agencies. when we passed the bipartisan budget act last october, we agreed on parity, and what we said was that there would be parity between defense and nondefense. now, what does that mean? it means defense gets $500 billion. nondefense, which is all of the other programs for the united states of america, gets the other $500 billion. that means everything from pell grants and the national institutes of health to homeland security to the f.b.i. i could go on and on. now, we -- or i am willing to support the need to defend america by allowing more

spending on defense, but i take the position that america faces other threats as well and that we need to maintain the parity, so the amendment being offered by senator jack reed and i as an original cosponsor say yes to the $18 billion for defense needs and yes to $18 billion for nondefense needs so we can make the nation safe and more secure. the is reed-mikulski amendment does two things. it amends the 2015 bipartisan budget act to allow both $18 billion of relief from sequestration for defense spending, the same amount, exactly in the same way as described by my senior colleague from arizona, the american war hero john mccain. but there is another $18 billion

that we have in our amendment, the reed-mikulski amendment for nondefense spending because there are threats to the united states of america in addition to the ones that d.o.d. does. so what does the reed-mikulski fund? well, one, it funds those agencies that we think provide national security in addition to the d.o.d. we are talking about more money for the state department so that they can do their diplomacy, so they can provide their embassy security and so we can meet the humanitarian need where we are winning hearts and minds of people and also making sure that we help other people around the world. it also will add more to homeland security so that they can defend our coast and defend our borders, and it adds more

money to the department of justice so that they can track terrorists or keep an eye on it to make sure we don't have terrorist attacks here. but there are also other threats to the united states of america, one of which is in the area of cybersecurity. that occurs in order to have the protection of dot military, dot gov to maintain our continuity of government and dot com, essentially the functioning of our whole country that is not government or military. my gosh, everybody is being hacked. o.p.m. was hacked. look at all that we lost. there are over a million hacks a week going on against government agencies who want to steal our

trade secrets from the patent office to nasa to n.i.h. to f.d.a. why invent a cure for cancer when you can steal it? then of course there is this threat to zika. make no mistake, these aren't cute little bugs coming from the southern hemisphere. these are bugs that when they infect people, protecting pregnant women, the results are horrific birth defects. zika is a threat to the public health of the united states of america. then there is the danger of heroin and there is the danger to -- in terms of the other kinds of environmental dangers like flint, michigan, is facing. we also are running significant areas of deficits and research

infrastructure and human infrastructure. i am going to elaborate on that in a minute, but why do we need the reed-mikulski amendment? current spending caps are $20 billion below the fiscal 2010 level, so let's make no mistake. we appropriators aren't exactly these wild big spenders. neither is the budget act. the budget act that we are working under is at the level of 2010. so this amendment authorizes funding to meet real problems. other members will come to discuss that, but i just want to make clear that if you want to keep our troops safe, the best way is to give peace a chance. it's not a song from another era. if we need to try to prevent war, we need to -- to contain war or to end war, we need

diplomacy. that's what the state department does. around the world. stopping conflict, stopping proliferation, supporting treasured allies. we also need to protect our people who work abroad, both our military and those who work at our embassies. we need embassy security and we also need foreign aid to respond to real human needs avoiding creating new enemies or new problems abroad. we need the state department. but we also need homeland security. we need to protect our borders. we need the united states coast guard out there protecting us against drug dealers, terrorists, helping provide port security. we need customs and border protection, securing borders. there are those who want to build a wall. i'm going to make sure we have the men and women and the technology to secure the borders. and we need law enforcement to

fight terrorism abroad and also those that are the drug dealers, the human traffickers, the cartel people, the organized crime. that's why we need the f.b.i. help, the drug enforcement help, and the marshal service help. this amendment would authorize $1.4 billion for the department of homeland security and the department of justice to make sure we have enough people and the right technology to be able to protect us. in addition to the spartan situation we find in the appropriations committee. we need to be able to do that. when we look at cyber security, this is an all hands on deck, all government on deck, all of us on deck. we do need d.o.d. to help the threats to our military. increasingly relying on digital technology, i'm so proud of what we do at the national security

agency, the mothership of talent focused on protecting the agency of the nation. i'm proud of the cyber command. but i'm also proud of what we do to our cyber security in terms of what we do at homeland security, the national institutes of standards and others coming up with new information, security technology. there are a lot of numbers and data but i'm going to skip that over. now, there are others that would say cyber security. then there is the legacy of war. the legacy of war is what we owe our veterans which is celebrated memorial day honoring those who made the ultimate sacrifice but also extending our support for veterans everywhere. did you know, though, mr. president, that 60% of veterans

health administration facilities are over 50 years old? and the facilities are aging in place. the v.a. itself has catalogued $10 billion worth of maintenance deficiencies and code violations at hospitals and clinics? we're not talking new construction here, mr. president. we're talking about deficiencies in maintenance and actual code violations. the v.a. tells us about leaking roofs, mow grow -- mold growing and other serious problems. i could go on. we all remember walter reed where the years of neglected maintenance led to horrible conditions for our veterans and their families. they deserve better. they deserve facilities that are fit for duty as they are. then there's this other issue

where i am very concerned which is in the area of research and development. now, some of my colleagues might say, well, what the heck does that have to do with being in the military. well, we need research and development to be able to come up with the new ideas and the new technologies to protect our nation. look at what the department of energy did. they're helping develop big trucks that sip gas like a civic, like a honda civic. what does that mean? it means that our military can be more efficient but it means we are more energy dependent. you know, the national science foundation has done so much in the way of basic research that it has enabled us to come up with whole new fields like tag ns nano technology or miniaturization that enables our people to not have -- not only have the smart weapons against

war but the smart weapons against disease. my gosh, look at what we're developing just in terms of new technology. mr. president, i don't know if you're aware, but a lot of the work that was done at nasa, particularly in the area for space telescopes and rockets helped us come up with the new digital ma -- mammography. can you believe that? because we studied space out there, we learned to protect our people right here. and it also helps our others. i also want to just -- i also want to just talk about the fact that we do help some domestic programs here in the area of children. human infrastructure. people say, well, now, what does that have got to do with defense? well, i'm going to tell you what general dempsey told me. general dempsey told me and he's told others so it wasn't like a little thing that general dempsey, our former head of the

joint chiefs, general martin dempsey, decorated war hero, head of the joint chiefs said this. senator mikulski, did you know that every -- for every four people that want to enlist in our military, only one is found fit to serve? either people are physically unfit or they're intellectually -- not intellectually, they can't read or they've had a problem with mental illness or addiction. we need to invest in our children president if for nothing else, we need to make sure all americans are fit for duty. so this is why we need to do this. we've spoken eloquently why we need more money for zika. we've spoken eloquently why we need to fight the opioid in flint. i note that the distinguished majority leader is on the floor. i'm going to just wrap up by saying this. first, i want unanimous consent

that my entire statement go into the record. but ifer's going to -- but if we're going to spend more money on defense, even though we already spend $500 billion, 50% of all discretionary spending, let's spend money on also other agencies that enable us to have a strong national security. and also, let us put money into the other threats to the united states. right now a public health crisis in zika, a public health crisis in opioid-heroin addiction, a crisis for flint, michigan, and others facing environmental problems and let's make these other investments to make sure we keep america strong. mr. president, i yield the floor by saying let us please vote for the reed-mikulski second-degree amendment.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. a senator: mr. president, our government has work to do but when it comes to making sure that our courts have the judges they need, when it comes to making sure that the federal

agencies have the leaders they need, when it comes to filling a vacant seat on the highest court in this nation, senate republicans refuse to do their job. ms. warren: senate republican vs a long history of obstructing president obama's nominees. earlier this week i released a report documenting that long history. the republicans have slowed down the confirmation of judiciary mom -- judicial nominees to a crawl. the people needed to resolve important legal disputes. they have stalled confirmations of key agency heads. the people need it to protect consumers, to protect our environment, to defend our country. and they are blockin blocking mk garland, a judge, our colleagues, senator orrin hatch previously called a fine man who the president could easily name to fill the vacancy on the supreme court. instead of working to make government function, to make government more efficient, senate republicans have made it

their priority to keep key positions empty for so long as possible, to hamstring efforts to protect consumers and workers, to delay efforts to hold large corporations accountable, to slow down work to promote equality. the view of senate republicans seems to be pretty simple. if government isn't working for them, for their rich friends or for their right-wing allies, then senate republicans are going to -- won't let it work for anyone. but it isn't too late. they still have time to put aside their extremism and start doing what they were sent here to do. start with district court judges. the men and women who resolve disputes over how government works and whether the federal law or constitution are being respected. they do an enormous amount of work. their work is not political, democratic and republican senators have worked with the president to select these nominees. as of today, the senate judiciary committee has cleared 15 people who were nominated for seats on the federal district

courts. these nominees have the support of democrats and republicans. they are ready to serve their country. one of them is from massachusetts. we need our judge. this nation needs its judges. so let us vote. mr. president, i rise today to make a request for unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following 15 nominations: calendar numbers 357, 358, 359, 362, 363, 364, 459, 460, 461, 508, 569, 570, 571, 572, and 573, that the senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed, that the motions considered be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate,

that no further motions be in order to the nominations, that any related statements be printed in the record and that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there an objection? mr. mcconnell: reserving the right to object, mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: we've continued to process judicial nominations and we've done so even when a majority of the republican conference did not support the nominee as was the case with the district court nominee from maryland whom we confirmed before the recess. that was an example of a judge confirmed, a majority of republicans did not approve of. just on monday of this week, the first day back from the recess, we confirmed two more, article 3 judicial nominees. we have tried to confirm them before the recess, by the way, but our democratic colleagues would not clear them. president obama has had many more judicial nominees confirmed

than president bush did at the same point in his presidency. and we'll continue to process his judicial nominations but the minority is not going to dictate to the majority when and how we will do so. i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. ms. warren: would the majority leader yield for a question? mr. mcconnell: i yielded the floor. ms. warren: mr. president, i'm asking if the yrt leader would -- majority leader would yield for a question. the presiding officer: the majority leader doesn't have the floor. ms. warren: i will ask my question. on monday i wanted to come to the senate floor to make the request that i just made. but i guess the majority leader was taking a lot of heat about judges and donald trump's racist statements about them and didn't want to draw any more attention to the republicans' unprecedented blockade of judicial nominations. so the republicans offered me a deal, just go away and we'll

confirm two court of international trade judges. now, the court of international trade is pretty important. it handles trade enforcement cases and nearly half of that court has been empty for a year because republicans refuse to do their jobs. these two uncontroversial nominees had been twisting in the wind for 336 days. they are highly qualified, honorable lawyers who are ready to serve their country. so on monday i took the deal. the republicans released two hostages and the senate confirmed them by voice vote without objection, not a single objection. nearly a year after they were nominated. today the majority leader isn't offering to release any hostages, and my question for the majority leader is, so what happened between monday and today? and i yield if the majority leader would like to respond. mr. mcconnell: well, mr. president, the article 3 judges

she's referring to we tried to confirm before the recess, and a democratic colleagues would not clear them. i don't know whether the senator from massachusetts has additional to propound or not but if she does, i would respectfully suggest she propound them. ms. warren: then i certainly will. mr. -- mr. president, last week, the majority leader wrote an op-ed in "the wall street journal" and it was titled without a hint of irony how the senate is supposed to work. in his article, senator mcconnell declared that -- quote -- on issues of great national significance, one party should simply never force its will on everybody else. and he pleaded that -- quote -- it's not an act of betrayal to work with one's political adversaries when doing so is good for the country. senator mcconnell agreed to confirm two highly qualified judges on monday because it served his political interests.

today he doesn't feel like it, so he forces his will on everyone else. that is not how the senate is supposed to work. the constitution is clear. the senate's job is to provide advice and consent on the president's judicial nominees. there is no asterisk that says only when the majority leader has an embarrassing political problem or except when the president is named barack obama. it is not what the founders had in mind because it is small, it is petty and it is absurd. for these district court nominees, the united states senate should be asking one question and one question only -- are these judges qualified or are they not qualified, that's it, but that's not what's happening in the united states senate. instead, good people twist in the wind, hung up as political hostages, and that undermines the integrity of our courts. so if you won't give all 15

judges their votes, let's at least have a vote on the nine district court nominees who have their -- who had their judiciary committee hearings last year. senator toomey called for some of these nominees to be confirmed last month. all of these nominees would be waiting for at least six months, almost 200 days since their hearings. when president reagan was in office, almost no uncontroversial nominees took longer than 100 days to confirm from the day they were nominated. the delay is ridiculous. give them their votes. mr. president, i make a request for unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nine nominations that have been pending since 2015 -- calendars number 357, 358, 359, 362, 363, 364, 459, 460, 461,

that the senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed, that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order to the nominations, that any related statements be printed in the record, and that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there an objection? mr. mcconnell: mr. president, reserving the right to object, so our colleagues are not confused, looking at the bush years to today and the obama years to today, apples and apples, president obama has had 327 judges confirmed. president bush had 304. president obama has not been treated unfairly. i object. ms. warren: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: right this minute, right here on the floor of the senate, we face one of those

issues of great national significance that the majority leader wrote about in "the wall street journal." it is an exploding number of judicial vacancies. "the washington post" recently reported, and i want to quote, of 673 u.s. district court judgeships, 67 or 10% are v.a. capital under president obama. nearly twice as many as at this point of george w. bush's presidency, and 50% higher than at this time under bill clinton or george h.w. bush. the number of federally designated district court judicial emergencies where seats carry particularly heavy caseloads or have been open for an extended period is also roughly double what it was in may, 2008, and may, 2000. addressing those emergencies is good for the country. keeping our courts functioning

is good for the country. confirming nominees who have the supreme support of republicans and democrats is good for the country. but just a minute ago, the majority leader blocked confirmation of all 15 noncontroversial judges who are waiting for votes. that's not putting the country first. that's putting politics first. it's forcing the will of a small number of extremist republicans on the entire country, and the integrity of our judicial branch is suffering for it. so let me try this again. surely we can agree to confirm the four oldest nominations on this list, two democratic recommendations and two republican recommendations. they all had hearings in september, nine months ago. what are we waiting for? give them their votes. mr. president, i make a request for unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider the

following four nominations -- calendar numbers 357, 358, 359 and 362, that the senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed, that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order to the nominations, that any related statements be printed in the record and that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there an objection? mr. hatch: mr. president, i object, unfortunately. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i rise once again to discuss the state of our nation's health care system. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts still has the floor. ms. warren: yes. mr. president, i wish i could say that i am surprised by this but i am not surprised.

the republican leader can say whatever he wants today but he has made his intentions very clear when it comes to president obama. on the eve of the 2010 elections, senator mcconnell said, and i quote, the single most important thing we want to achieve is for president obama to be a one-term president. well, president obama won re-election, but senate republicans have still stalled, delayed and blocked his nominees, and since they took charge last year of the senate, these republicans are on pace for the lowest number of judicial confirmations in more than 60 years. so can we at least confirm one noncontroversial district judge? the nominee on the list who has been waiting the longest is brian martinotti. new jersey needs this judge. he was nominated a year ago. he has been twisting in the wind for nine months since his confirmation hearing. give him a vote.

mr. president, i make a request for unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 357, that the senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed, that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order to the nominations, that any related statements be printed in the record and that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there an objection? mr. hatch: mr. president, i reserve the right to object. i will certainly look at this and see what can be done, but at this present time, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. ms. warren: mr. president, brian martinotti deserves better than this. all of these nominees deserve better than this. merrick garland deserves better than this. and the american people deserve better than this.

and we will keep fighting to try to get the senate republicans to do their job. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: mr. president, i have only been here 40 years, and this happens every time at the end. they have not been mistreated. the fact of the matter is they have had more judges in seven years than president bush had in a full eight years, and they are going to have more judges, but it's the majority leader's determination as to when those judges will come up and when they will be confirmed, and i think that he has been doing it on a regular basis. i hate to go back in time, but i could go back in time and show how the delays of republican judges with republican presidents were just unbelievable, and all i can say is that, you know, it's nice to raise these fusses around here, and i don't blame the distinguished senator from massachusetts because she is doing her job, but let's allow the majority leader to do his job as well. mr. president, i rise once again

to discuss the state of our nation's health care system and what we can likely expect in 2017 under obamacare. this is a good subject following on to this judgeship discussion because the democrats are acting so offended and so mistreated, when i hate to tell you how we were mistreated time after time after time when we had -- we had republican presidents. let me just talk about what we can expect in 2017 under obamacare. however, before i delve into that discussion, i think it's important to provide a little context. roughly seven and a half years ago, president obama was sworn into office riding a wave of goodwill, optimism and so many promises about what he was and was not going to do that it was difficult to keep track of. seven and a half years may not be all that long in the grand scheme of things, but it is surely long enough to evaluate

the economic successes and failures of a single administration. so let's take a look at what we have witnessed in the years president obama has been in office. since january, 2009, our nation's gross domestic product has grown at an average annual rate of only 1.7%. think of that. 1.7% in seven and a half years. and the overall trajectory hasn't really been improving. in the last quarter, our economy grew at the slowest rate in two years. at the same time we have experienced that slow g.d.p. growth, wage growth has been sluggish and median household income in the united states has actually gone down under this president, declining at an annual rate of almost .5%. slow economic growth, slow wage

growth, declining household incomes. this past friday, we learned that the economy added only 38,000 jobs in may with jobs gains having averaged a sluggish 112,000 per month since president obama took office, and this was only 38,000 this last month. when are the american people going to wake up and realize these people are not doing their job? not only are they not doing their job, they are doing a lousy job. there is not a new normal here either. they are trying to pass off that they have low -- low unemployment rates. they are not counting all the people who don't even look for a job anymore. if you count them, it's well over 9%. that is what we have seen in the obama economy. sadly, even that doesn't tell the whole sad story. along with a stagnant economy and declining household income, the cost of health care has gone up almost exponentially.

and exponentially in some areas. health insurance premiums for families with employer-based coverage, one of the handful of benchmarks for measuring the cost of health care in the u.s., has gone up by an average of 5% a year. that trend, according to both the congressional budget office and the joint committee on taxation, is expected to continue over the next decade with premiums in the individual health insurance market going up at an even faster rate. meanwhile, the federal reserve projects that growth in our economy will range between 1.8% and 2.3%, well below historic averages and far below the growth rate for average health insurance premiums. do you think we're going to do any better with a new democrat president? i don't think so. she has already admitted she is going to follow the principles of this president, and the program of this president. long ago, -- let me put it this

way. long story short, under this president, we have seen mostly lackluster economic growth and a decline in household income while the cost of the health insurance has eaten up an increasingly larger share of american families' earnings and an ever-growing percentage of our national economy, and according to most credible projections, it's only going to get worse. and there are still 30 million people without health insurance, about the number there was when they came up with this colossal, wasteful mess of the health care bill. this correlation of economic stagnation and exploding health care costs is particularly damning for this president because his signature domestic achievement, his top priority after being elected was passage of the so-called affordable health care act, a law that was among many other things supposed to bring down health care costs.

the word affordable is actually in the operative word -- is actually the operative word in the name of the law, mr. president, yet it is probably the least suitable word for describing what this statute has actually done to our health care system. it has now been three years since the affordable care act was fully implemented and in effect, and in all three of those years average health insurance premiums in the united states have gone up by double digits in many markets. insurers are currently making rate decisions for year four of obamacare, and from what we've seen thus far, things are only going to get worse. according to one analyst, the average weighted rate increases requested from 28 states and the district of columbia is approximately 20%. indeed over the past two months it seems like we've seen a new

headline every day that highlights the failure of obamacare to bring down premiums. for example, we've recently learned that in new york, patients may see an average premium increase of 17% on the obamacare insurance exchanges. in fact, one major new york carrier requested a rate hike of 45% over what they charged last year. or should i say this year, i guess. in the state of new mexico, one major insurer requested a premium increase of more than 83%. and those states aren't outliers, mr. president. average premiums in mississippi could increase by over $1,000 next year. that's according to recent reports. insurers have requested average hikes of nearly 14% in

washington. a major carrier in new hampshire requested an increase of more than 45% for 2014. another insurer has submitted a request to raise premiums by 36% in tennessee. people in other states like virginia, florida, maine, oregon and iowa are all facing potential double-digit increases in premiums with some in the 30% to 40% range. keep in mind these are just the states we know about thus far. more numbers and almost certainly more requested premium hikes will be made public very shortly. we're still waiting to see specifically what will happen for the people of my home state of utah. still we already know that many utahans are facing difficulties. i hear from my constituents all the time on these issues. for example, a citizen from roosevelt, utah, wrote me to say this about her experience with obamacare -- quote -- "i can't

afford the monthly premiums, and as long as i have to pay extraordinary deductibles, i may as well just continue paying for the visits as i go and not have to worry about the extra money i would have to spend in premiums which are outrageous. i realize i will have to pay a penalty when i do my taxes, but it will be way less than the premiums i would have had to pay had i signed up for this health care debacle." unquote. another constituent named rochelle from santa clara, utah, said this in a recent letter -- quote -- "as i am looking into purchasing the health care coverage we need, i'm finding that it is totally ridiculous. the costs -- the catastrophic health care we were planning for a few years ago no longer exists because of the health care laws. in order to get legal health care for me, my spouse and my three eligible children, i'm being required to pay close to

$1,300 per month. these policies still require huge deductibles and will quickly eat up the money we put away for such things." unquote. these stories unfortunately are not isolated incidents. people through the the country are growing more and more concerned about the cost of health care under the president's health law. even without the skyrocketing cost of health care, millions of american families would still be struggling to make it under the obama economy. yet for these people, all of whom have had to suffer through a period of stagnant economic growth and declining incomes, these rising health care costs are at best a slap in the face and at worst a nail in the financial coffin. i spent a lot of time here on the senate floor over the last six years describing what has gone wrong with the affordable care act. i won't detail the structural problems with the law here

today. instead i'll repeat what should be clear to everyone here. this law is not working. this law has imposed even greater burdens on virtually all the participants in our health care system, and this law is failing middle-class and lower-income families throughout the country. we can and we must do better. but in order to do so, we will have to turn our focus to the biggest problem the patients face as they navigate our health care system, and that's cost. we must bring costs down. any future attempts at health care reform that are not cost focused are, in my view, and i suspect the view of most americans, a waste of time and effort. as for me, my position is pretty clear. i support the repeal of obamacare, and i support a replacement that makes sense. i've worked with colleagues to come up with a replacement proposal designed specifically to contain costs for patients and consumers. and a number of health care

experts have concluded that our proposal which we've called the patient care act would do just that. there are, of course, other proposals out there. for example, i know that the house majority is working on a proposal, and i am anxious to see what they come up with. and as chairman of the finance committee which has jurisdiction over many major aspects of our health care system, i have begun reaching out to stakeholders to discuss in more detail the current premium crisis and what needs to be done to address it. let's be clear, to bring down these rising health care costs, we'll need significant buy-in from my friends on the other side of the aisle. and quite frankly, i don't know how any of them could read the recent news reports about premium hikes and hearing the stories from their constituents about skyrocketing health care costs and think that obamacare is working just the way it was supposed to. so if i, as i've said before, my

hope is that at some point my colleagues on the democrat side will begin to acknowledge the failures of obamacare. at the very least, they should acknowledge that it has failed to bring costs down for patients and consumers and is in fact driving costs up. until that acknowledgement comes i plan to do all i can to make the case to the american people about the need for change and work with anyone who is willing to put in the effort to address these monumental problems. i look forward to speaking more about these issues in the coming weeks and months. with all the economic struggles the american people, particularly those in the middle class and with lower incomes, have had to deal with under the obama administration, the last thing families in the u.s. need is the continuation of the skyrocketing health premiums we've seen as a result of obamacare. i plan to do all i can to reverse this trend. i know that there are some on the democratic side who from the

beginning knew that it wasn't going to work, and then they would be able to throw their hands in the air and say it's not working, we need to go to socialized medicine or one-size-fits-all government control of all health care in this country. anybody who thinks that that's going to be a good system, boy, have i got a bridge to sell you. the fact of the matter is as bad as our system was before, it was better than what this is. and we can make it better. but it's going to take democrats and republicans coming together in the best interest and get rid of the stupid politics involved to come up with a program that really will work for the american people. i can tell you this, the american people cannot live on the slow growth that's currently going on.

we can't compete with the rest of the world on the slow growth that the currently going on. and it's been a slow growth for all of president obama's time in the presidency. it wasn't all his fault, but by gosh, there could have been programs that would have made it better had they just relied a little bit more on the free market system that really has made this country the greatest country in the world. mr. president, i yield the floor. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, i come to the floor this afternoon to talk against an amendment that would undermine the spirit of bipartisanship we have cultivated with the last several budget deals without fully addressing our national security and domestic needs and to speak in support of an alternative that would do so much more to protect our families, improve our national security, and build

on our bipartisan budget deal in a truly fair and responsible way. mr. president, as i will go into in a bit more, for an amendment on a bill focused on making sure our nation is prepared to meet future challenges here at home and around the world,s the republican amendment ignores too many priorities in the non-defense world that are critical to our nation's security. it only supplements defense priorities leaving by the way domestic challenges like the flint water crisis, the zika outbreak, the opioid crisis and domestic law enforcement agencies like the f.b.i., to say nothing of investments that we also know improve national security in the long run, like education and health care and a strong economy and more. and, mr. president, it casts aside the principles we lay down in our bipartisan budget deal that we should be building on,

not tearing down. mr. president, i want to spend a minute or two on that last point since it is a very important one. as many of us have said here before, a budget is far more than simply numbers on a page. a budget truly is a statement of values, of priorities, of the kind of nation we are and the kind of nation we want to be. that's why i'm so proud that following the tea party government shutdown back in 2013, democrats and republicans were finally able to come together, break through the gridlock and reach a bipartisan budget deal. our deal wasn't perfect. it wasn't what any of us would have written on our own, but it was a critical step in the right direction. it restored investments in health care and education, in research and defense jobs. it halted the constant lurching from one crisis to the next, and it really showed the american

people that we here in congress can make things work when we work together. mr. president, we were able to get a bipartisan deal because we kept to a core principle, and that was rolling back the cuts evenly across defense and non-defense investments. that wasn't the only hurdle, but it was a big one. both sides agreed we may not agree on everything, but we had to solve the problem in a fair and balanced way and one that addressed all of our budget challenges here at home and throughout the world. and, mr. president, establishing this principle and then sticking to it in our 2015 deal is what helped us make the progress we've made and build a foundation for continued work. and i believe it is a principle we need to stick to if we want that good work to continue. we reached a two-year bipartisan

budget agreement just last fall. if the senate is about to open up that bipartisan budget agreement on this bill, then we should be doing it in a thoughtful and productive manner that allows us to build on the two-year deal and address a fuller range of security issues. mr. president, unfortunately the amendment that we are going to vote on either later tonight or tomorrow would move us in the wrong direction when it comes to this productive bipartisan work. instead of building on our deal, it tries to circumvent it. instead of working together to truly restore investments, it uses a gimmick to pretend to restore investments. and instead of working with democrats to restore cuts on the domestic side that support our national security as well, it only supports the defense side and leaves far too much behind. i don't think that's right and i think actually we can do better. mr. president, if republicans

truly want to work with us to build on our budget deal in this bill in a way that truly prepares us to respond to domestic and foreign challenges facing our country, we have an alternative. our amendment, the democratic alternative, would restore investments that help workers and the middle class and veterans and families all across our country at an equal level to the defense priorities. it would invest in critical priorities that clearly keep our country safe, including supporting the operations of the federal bureau of investigation and supplying the transportation security administration with the tools that they need to keep our airports and other transit hubs safe that have become a target for terrorist attacks and allow us to tackle the opioid crisis that's devastating communities in my home state of washington and across the country. it would provide the resources for us to respond to the water and lead issues in flint and

many communities in our nation and provide resources to help us address so many of the challenges facing our workers and our families and our communities and our middle class, and do it in the fair and balanced way that we all know works. by building on the bipartisan budget deal and treating defense and non-defense equitably and fairly. so i urge my colleagues to support the democratic amendment so we can restore these investments in critical defense and non-defense programs and invest in priorities that keep us safe and strengthen our communities and the middle class because having a powerful military is important to our country's safety. but so is access to safe drinking water and so are t.s.a. agents protecting our transit hubs, zika research to prevent further spread of this disease, and so much more. so, mr. president, i hope we can work together to build on our

bipartisan progress, stick to our bipartisan principles, and keep our country moving in the right direction. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i came to the floor to talk about the visit of prime minister modi of india and his speech this morning in an amendment i have, but listening to the senator from washington, i have to just express my sense of wonder and amazement at our democratic colleagues for whom no amount of money, no growth in the size of government is too much. and while i am certainly sympathetic to the senator from arizona's amendment, which would

increase defense spending at a time when there's a greater array and greater diversity of threats to our country than the director of national intelligence, james clapper, has seen in his 50-year career, the idea that because we want to take care of the number-one priority of the federal government -- which is national security and self-defense -- we have to somehow use that to leverage more spending in other areas that are non-defense-related is simply unacceptable, particularly at a time when our national debt is $19 trillion. now, the other day, i happened to be speaking to a young woman who asked me -- said, well, what would you tell me to tell my peers? she must have been -- who knows who old she was -- in her recallly 20's. she said, what would you tell me to it will my peers about politics and why they should care and why they should be

involved? and i told her, i said, if i were you, i'd be angry, i'd be mad. your generation should be angry with my generation because p what we've done is spent a bunch of money that we didn't have and we simply passed the debt and the bill off to your generation. and it's not just the $19 trillion in debt. it's also path -- the pathway to social security and medicare, the promises we made to our seniors for a secure late-in-life lifestyle simply can't be kept, unless we support and reform social security and make it sustainable for future generations. so, this isn't the main reason came to the floor to speak today, but i just have to express my own sense of wonder and amazement at our democratic

colleagues, who just want to continue to spend more money we don't have, because they know that if you end up spending this money they're asking for, it's just asking to be added to the bill that's going to be paid by the next generation, people like these young folks down here who are our pages. and that's, frankly, immoral, and i.t. just not acceptable -- and it's just not acceptable. but on the main reason came here to speak today was really an historic day in washington, d.c., and in the relationship between the government of the republic of india and the united states of america. and like many of my colleagues, i had a chance to listen to prime minister modi speak to a joint meeting of congress this morning over in the house of representatives. and i was reminded of how far our two countries have come in such a relatively short period of time. my first visit to india was about ten years ago. i had been encouraged to go because of some of my

constituents back in texas who started the dallas indio chambr of commerce. probably around the state of texas, we probably have some 250,000 to 300,000 indian-americans, part of the didiaspora that prime minister modi spoke about. when i came back from my trip to india at the same request of this same constituent, he encouraged us to create a u.s. senate india caucus. and knowing that our two countries had a lot more work to do together, and i'm happy to say that ten years ago when secretary clinton was then senator clinton, she and i cofounded the u.s.-india caucus. later on, chris dodd, after

senator clinton became secretary clinton, and then after senator chris dodd left, senator mark worn--senator mark warner, is my cochair. we have about 30 members of this u.s.-india caucus, which acknowledges how important this relationship has become. and i'm grateful for the concrete manifestation -- i mean, the evidence of that relationship, things like the fact that as prime minister modi sad, india joins the u.s. in more joint military exercises than with any other country. and we have a robust civil nuclear agreement that allows for the exchanges of critical information in technology. this has been a long time in coming. i think it was 2008 when the bush administration advocated for this civil nuclear agreement, which now apparently is coming to fruition. i noticed that president obama and prime minister modi

announced the construction plans for a number of nuclear power plants in india. india is a vast country. i think he mentioned 1.25 billion people. many of them simply don't have electricity and live very impoverished lives. it is an acknowledgment both of our close-knit relationship but also the need that india has in order to advance and lift its own people to better living conditions to have access to the electricity that's going to become available once these nuclear power plants are constructed. and, of course, our economies continue to rely upon each other increasingly for trade and investment. and as more and more american-made goods or american agricultural products are sold to india, with the rising middle class, there are going to be more and more people purchasing those goods and services, and of course that's going to help improve jobs here in the united states as well as the quality of

life there. and, of course, perhaps most importantly, we share growing cultural ties. fast-forward to today when prime minister modi spoke today, he talked about his vision for his country's future, including deepening and broadening the relationship with the united states. that is really a welcome statement by the prime minister. unfortunately, over the last few years -- seven or eight years of the obama administration -- many of our friends and allies around the world have questioned our comument to those friendships and -- questioned our commitment to those friendships. many of our adversaries have become emboldened when they see america retreating with its engagement with the rest of the world. we don't need american boots on the ground around the globe, but we do need american leadership arpd the world. -- around the world. and there is no other country with benign intent like the

united states that can fill that leadership void. so i'm really glad to hear prime minister modi talk about the importance of it, and i hope we all respond aappropriately. -- all respond appropriately. of course this is important not just today but it will become craggily important in the 21 -- increasingly important in the 21st century. the safety and stability of the asia-pacific region will depend more and more on the safety and stability of india. and here in the senate we have ample opportunity to work with our friends from india in order to guarantee that goal. there are a couple pieces of legislation i've cosponsored with senator warner, my cochair of the u.s.-india caucus, that will bolster our ties with india. the first will bring india into an existing trade structure, aipec -- apec.

it would urge apec nations to support india's membership. as the world continues to become more interconnected through trade, we need to make sure like-minded countries with economic might like india have a seat at the table. and of course it is a truism that countries that do business together and trade together are much less likely to engage in some conflict against each other. so trade is good for national security and international security as well, not just for the economy. the second bill that i've introduced will help cement india's start us as a major partner of the -- status as a major partner of the united states. it will strengthen our defense and technology ties and also make sure india is equipped to handle the myriad threats coming its way. the truth is that india i is at risk for many of the same threats that the united states s prime minister modi this morning

mentioned the inties cyber thred certainly that is true. india is a target for international terrorist attacks and indeed the prime minister mentioned the terrible attacks that occurred in mumbai not that many years ago when terrorists came in and killed a bunch of tourists there in mumbai, or bombay. i'm proud to also cosponsor an amendment to the defense authorization bill introduced by the junior senator from alaska. this amendment would encourage greater military cooperation with india, even though i.t. at an all-time -- even though it's at an all-time high, it certainly could be improved by more joint military operations and officer exchanges. this is really an incredible source of american diplomatic power and strength, particularly in our military-to-military relationships. i can't tell you how many times that i've been around to countries around the world, like i was for example in cairo, egypt, sitting there talking to

the president of egypt, president sierra leone, who was -- president cici, who was talking about his military training in my hometown of texas. i had to ask him how he liked the tex mex. he said it was a little too spicy for him. the point is, these military-to-military exchanges with countries like egypt and india and others are a great fiewnts for us to establish -- opportunity for us to establish friendships and connections and people who invariably -- and i'm sure nobody dreamed that then-military officer cici would become president of egypt, but he rose in that leadership position and now is the leer leader of that -- and now is the leader of that large country of some 92 million people. so those military-to-military relationships, those joint military exercises with countries like india are very important. let me close on the prime minister's comments this

morning, just by thanking him publicly. it spokes volumes to his commitment to further the u.s.-india relationship, and i look forward to continuing to play a small part in that effort through the work of the senate india caucus. as his visit i wil illustrates,e u.s. cannot afford to ignore our friends and those who share common values, as prime minister spoke. the world is simply too unstable and too dangerous, plus it's just plain stupid not to maintain a good relationship with your friends and allies and people who share similar values. but we also have to look at the other side of the coin, and that is to push back on our adversaries. as i said, unfortunately, over his eight years in the white house, the president has seemed asthma detached -- has seemed somewhat detached from both of

those, by either demonstrating that we have their back, or by pushing back when they take aggressive action. his first secretary of state, secretary clinton,ing arely lacked the ability to call a spade a spade. and particularly with regard to challenges like our enemy in north korea. not too long ago -- and i guess it was about august of last year, i had a chance to visit with admiral harris, four-star head of pacific command. and when we asked him to list the danger spots in the world that keep him awake at night, hemansed north korea -- mentioned north korea as the number-one threat. of course, some of that may be the proximity of his command there in hawaii. but the fact is, north korea is ruled by a dangerous dictator who has nuclear weapons and

intercontinental ballistic intercontinental ballistic missiles, which is a dangerous mix, and of course unfortunately under secretary clinton's watch and president obama's watch, this has gotten nothing but worse. as we continue to consider the national defense authorization act, we do have a chance to take up some of the slack, though. we're not without tools here in the congress to fill in some of the gap and to correct some of the misguided foreign policy prescriptions of the white house. and one way we can do that is by supporting an amendment that i've introduced that will help us hold iran accountable for recent hostile actions against u.s. sailors. we all will remember last january two navy riverine boats with ten american sailors on board made international headlines when they strayed into iranian waters. they were taken captives by members of iran's revolutionary guard corps after being forced

at gunpoint to surrender. the sailors were blindfolded, they were hauled back to iranian soil, they were interrogated and detained. the irgc hench men documented the event at almost every step along the way quickly broadcasting those videos and photos of the captured sailor among state-run media outlets. this is not in line with international norms. this is not the way we would treat a foreign country's navy if the same thing were to happen. and the geneva convention makes clear that when military forces from one country detain military forces from another, those prisoners are to be protected from public displays of humiliation, not to be used for propaganda purposes which is what the american sailors were used for. and something called the doctrine of innocent passage, a concept of what is known as customary international law provides that all vessels have the right of travel through

another country's territorial waters to get from point a to point b swiftly. and it's pretty apparent that iran violated our sailors' right to innocent passage. but we haven't heard a peep out of the white house. instead the administration has patted itself on the back and claimed that their bad iran deal somehow brought these sailors home safe. they claim that somehow the enhanced credibility they had from the misguided iran nuclear deal somehow gave them a seat at the table and an ability to negotiate the release of our own sailors from iran. this is absolutely ridiculous and it ignores the crux of the problem. these sailors shouldn't have been taken captive in the first place. the president may leave this aggression unanswered but we don't have to. my amendment would require the

president to answer two questions. did iran's hostile actions in january violate international law? and were any federal funds paid to the iranian regime to affect the release of our sailors? in other words, did the obama administration pay ransom to bring them home? i think the american people and certainly the taxpayers have a right to know whether the obama administration used their hard-earned tax dollars to pay ransom to a rogue regime like iran's? ifif the administration finds ty violated international law there would be sanctions. we cannot abide by aggressions by thugs, tyrants and renegades. we need to hold tehran accountable in some way. since the president so far has refused to do that on his own,

it's incumbent on do think lead on -- on congress to lead on this issue and my amendment is a good start. i'm hopeful my colleagues will support it so iran knows even if it doesn't have to answer to the president of the united states, it will have to answer to the american people through their elected representatives in congress. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. coats: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: mr. president, it appears that we lack a quorum. i ask that that be discriminated. the presiding officer: without objection -- that that be-- -- mr. coats: i ask that that be vacated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coats: it is week 45 of "waste of the week" when i have been down here trying to save the taxpayers dollars. as i have said a number of times, our effort efforts effore starting in 2010 and up to this

point to go big to address the real fiscal situation that this country is dealing with the runaway entitlements, the ever-shrinking discretionary pot, the deficit spending leading to borrowing that has taken us from $10.7 trillion just in my term here, n now in it's sixth year, from $10 $10.trillion to $19.2 trillion. i don't think any of us can contemplate what $19.2 trillion really means. but what it means in terms of its impact and effect is that we are passing on to future generations a debt which they will not be able to repay without serious consequences to our economy and serious consequences to their pocketbook. that's a speech for another time. "waste of the week" is simply an attempt, since we have not been able to address the larger

issue, an amendment to look at -- an attempt to lock at documented, exposed by inspectors general and the government accountability office and other agencies clear waste, fraud, and abuse that has used taxpayers' dollars in an improper way. and so this, the 45th edition now, as we've highlighted close to $170 billion, exceeding our goal of $1 00 billion considerably and with no end in sight. now, we're debating this week -- last week and this week the national defense authorization bill, critically important for our national security and to provide for the kind of things that our military needs to be an effective military. so i think it's aappropriate to raise the issue that no one -- no agency is sacrosanct.

and while i am a committed supporter of national defense, while i served on the senate armed services committee for a ten-year period of time in my former time in the senate and support much of what the military does, it is important that we point out that they are not sacrosanct from falling into the category of abuse or waste or money that should have been better-accounted for and spent. and so i'm taking this opportunity during this debate to point out the fact that each agency of the federal government needs to be looked at, even those that we favor and want to support. obviously, any penny, dime, nickel, or dollar or more saved from something that needn't be spent is something that can go to help our soldiers be better-trained, help us have a stronger military, or if not needed there, used to offset

other programs within the federal government or, most importantly, hopefully sent back to the taxpayer or reduced from the taxes that we take from the taxpayer. today i want to talk about the acquisition process. the department of defense weapons acquisitions system is the process by which d.o.d. -- department of defense -- procures weapons systems or related items from various defense contractors. they include the design, development, deployment, and disposal of weapons used by our military. since 1990, the government accountability office has included the department of defense's weapons acquisition system on its annual high-risk list. let me explain that. the high-risk list, which is put out each year by the government

accountability office, the g.a.o., lists those risks of spending that fall under the category of, frankly, why are we spending this money in the first place? or let's look at how we're spending this money and see if it can be spent in a better and more efficient way. and due to the programs -- and in looking at programs' vulnerabilities to waste, fraud, and abuse. one of the biggest problems is frequently significant dollars are spent on weapons programs that end up never be completed. between 2001 and 2011, the department of defense spent $46 billion on a dozen different weapons systems programs that were never completed. let me repeat that. $46 billion of money spent on programs -- well-intended but

never completed for various reasons. i want to use just one example of that $46 billion category, and that's a program that was initiated bibut never -- but never finished, but it is an example of how taxpayers' money can be spent in significant amounts and with n no results. it was clear that after 9/11, we ought to be looking at the president's transportation, and in this case marine i, the helicopter that the president used to transfer to the air force base to climb aboard air force i, marine i was deemed to be somewhat behind on its technological capabilities, especially its communications

and security capabilities, and the department of defense initiated an effort to build a new helicopter. yet the requirements and the engineering that was needed for this new helicopter design were never finally fixed. and as the process went forward and the money was being spent, new ideas, new technologies came into play and the thought was that, well, let's add this here and change that there, and incorporate this into it, and as a result, the engineering that had originally been mapped out, the requirements, the design was not followed. there were constant changes, constant pleas for, we need to spend more money, we need to do more and more -- on and on it went. without those fixed and agreed-on guidelines, the department of defense adding more -- putting more add-ons

over the years, ultimately the helicopter became so weighted with so much new technology and security position adjustments and so forth that the mission -- that it's capability was compromised. as such -- as such, the program finally had to be scrapped in 2009 and the cost to the taxpayers, $3.7 billion of money spent and for no purpose whatsoever. good idea, good intent, probably the right thing to do, but without a sufficient acquisition system and development system, without an ability to say, look, let's get this thing fixed in terms of what we want it to look like, what we want it to be, and let's go forward with it, and if perhaps there's a few adjustments we can make, but

certainly it would be better to incorporate the new technologies at a rate that we thought we could accomplish within a limited amount of time, rather than simply on-going, 2001, 2002, 2003, all the way to 2009, and finally say, we're never going to get there, ending up, as i said, with $3.7 billion of waste. now, that's just one example. in the 2014 report, the general accounaccountability office fout problems like this have existed within weapons acquisitions for decades. g.a.o. found that many defense programs are launched before officials have enough information needed to determine whether the proposed program is even viable, meaning there is a mismatch between the new defense system's wish list of all the things that d.o.d. would like to have versus the current

technology that we'd be able to providing within the current financial and time constraints for developing the program. in terms -- the program sometimes gets the green light to move forward with unrealistic timetables leading to development delays. the general accountability office and military experts have emphasized the need to increase d.o.d. staff training on how to properly estimate project needs and technology capabilities before launching a project. now, you think this would have been simple. you would think this would have been the guidelines from the very beginning. you don't start a project until you estimate the project -- what the project needs and the technological capabilities that are capable of providing those needs before you start. but there is a history within the department of defense, and frankly within the policies of

defense contractors. get it started. once it's started, they're not going to turn it back down. and whether we're looking at the building of planes -- i mean, the history is replete with department of defense acquisitions that have incorporated changes that once started you can't stop the thing. and then the narrative turns from why are we doing this in the first place because we never fixed the requirements and fixed the cost and agreed not to go beyond that cost. it turns into, oh, well, we need to spend more. we can't turn it back now because otherwise we've wasted that money. and the helicopter -- presidential helicopter is a perfect example, and we're talking about $3.7 billion on that one, and on and on and on it goes. so i've just given you one example. now, mr. president, i am pleased that senator mccain and

senator reed, the ranking -- the chairman and ranking member of the senate armed services committee, have acknowledged this, and this national defense authorization act for 2017 fiscal year makes some very important reforms to the d.o.d. acquisition process. they've taken note of this. the committee has taken note of this. and before us now within this bill -- this bill that sits on my desk and on every desk here -- that we are debating, adding amendments to and hopefully will finish this week, in this legislation that we're debating and talking about and hope to pass are a number of reform processes and reform legislation here to help us address this problem. this legislation would reform the current regulatory process and make it easier for companies to compete for d.o.d. contracts in order to boost competition and lower cost. and aadditionally, the bill

would increase training -- maybe this is the most important of all -- training for those at the department of defense who plan and oversee the acquisition projects and put greater emphasis on technological innovation, which could help save money while spearheading new, cutting-eighth defense systems. that's the goal. that's the goal we have outlined in this legislation and why we need to support this legislation. it's an example of how the senate can tackle waste, fraud and abuse right now. and i encourage my colleagues to support these proposals. having said that, let me add, as we do each week, a $3.7 billion for a failed effort to develop a new helicopter for the president which brings our total taxpayer price tag to nearly $176 billion, not small change. think what we could do with that if it was spent