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 wisely or more importantly if we didn't have to

take it from the taxpayer in the first place. mr. president, having said that, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, i rise this afternoon to discuss the presidential tax transparency act, legislation that i have authored with senators warren, bennet, kaine, baldwin and boxer. and the reason i propose this legislation, mr. president, is that ever since watergate, it has been routine for democratic and republican presidential nominees to release their tax returns. so in effect this has been the norm. this has been the standard operating procedure for almost four decades. that's because the american people expect transparency when it comes to a presidential candidate's actions and values. they, of course, are running for the highest office in our land.

they're running to be commander in chief of the most powerful nation in the history of the world. and when transparency is the overwhelming expectation of the american people regarding the presidency, my view is it ought to be the law. right now we are in the midst of a presidential election, the nominating conventions are just weeks away, and one of the candidates who has become its party's presumptive nominee has thus far refused to release his tax returns. this in my view is a clean break from decades of traditions in our elections. in my view, it is a rebuke of the overwhelming majority of americans, polls indicate a

majority of republicans who demand as has been the case as i've indicated for decade after decade, that people have demanded openness and honesty from their presidential candidates of both political parties on this issue. the reason is the tax returns give the american people a lot of straightforward honest answers. it's not just about what rate you pay. it's about do you even pay tax taxes. do you give to charity? are you abusing loopholes at the expense of hard-working middle-class families? do you keep your money off shore? the fact is the tax return shines a light on your financial integrity. they'll show if a person is

trying to game the system, for example, by having their company pay for personal vacations on a private jet. certainly that is something far removed from the reaches of most hard-working families. my view has been, mr. president, that running for president is pretty much like a job intervi interview. every candidate has to stand up before the public and show that they have the temperament, the background, and the character to lead our wonderful country and be commander in chief. i believe that after decades of tradition, releasing tax returns is a big part of the process. when it comes to a candidate's financial background in taxes, i don't think the public should have to just take somebody's word for it or just accept the

kind of boasting that you see on some of these shows that get wide viewership. the public's got a right to know the facts and the public's got a right to know the truth. so the proposal that my colleagues and i have proposed, colleagues here in the senate, is pretty simple. it says within 15 days of becoming the nominee at the party conventions, the candidates would be required to release at least three years of tax returns. if a nominee stonewalls the law and refuses, then the treasury secretary would share the returns with the federal election commission and that commission would make them public online and there would be an opportunity as well for

redactions, what in effect are changes when appropriate. when presidents nominate individuals for cabinet seats and executive branch jobs within the jurisdiction of the finance committee, mr. president, the treasury secretary, the secretary of health and human services, social security, for example, when you have a nomin nominee, those nominees all submit three years of tax returns for the committee to review. when there's a need and where it's appropriate, information from those returns is made public. now, remember, that's the standard, mr. president, for people who would serve under the president of the united states. in my view the commander in chief ought to be required to do

better and the fact is nominees have traditionally released a lot more than three years. so probably it's a bit modest and a number of people who've looked at the proposal support what i and our colleagues are doing, like the transparency, like the disclosure, and a number of them have said you really ought to think about going further. now, i want to emphasize again, and i think colleagues know that i probably spent as much time here in the senate as any colleague trying to promote ideas and policies and get beyond just kind of sum of the partisanship that dominates these debates. i'm talking about candidates on both sides, both sides being required to meet this new bar.

the same wriewls apply -- same rules would apply to all nominees from both parties. and a word, mr. president, about this notion of requiring a presidential nominee to do this. i certainly wish that it wasn't necessary to have a law requiring this. that would be my first choice. and the fact is, it shouldn't take a law because this has been the norm. this has been the expectation. now, here's how i came to believe that a law is necessary. you volunteer to run for president of our wonderful country. you're not required to do it. you volunteer to do it. when you volunteer, in my view, there has been this norm.

there has been this expectation since watergate, almost 40 years, there's been this expectation that you would make public your tax return. so the failure to do so really deviates from the norm, deviates away from transparency and in favor of secrecy. so my view is when a candidate for president of the united states is not willing to disclose their taxes, do it voluntarily, it deviates from the norm, deviates from the expectation, the understandable expectation that the american people have, then i think you need a law and that's why i have proposed it. for these 40 decade, the

american people have been pretty clear. if you're a major party's nominee to be the leader of the free world, you do not get to hide your tax returns. so i hope my colleagues -- this is the first time i've discussed this proposal here on the floor. i hope our colleagues will support the presidential tax transparency act, and i hope that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle will agree that the american people deser deserve, deserve this guarantee of tax transparency that i have described this afternoon. now, mr. president, i'm going to speak briefly on one other matter that was particularly striking last week when i was home and going to talk for a few minutes about the wonderful work taking place at hermiston high

school in eastern oregon. last week i had the honor of visiting the -- a terrific career and education program, what are called the c.e.t. programs in her misston -- hermiston and i got a chance to watch some very impressive students in action. one of the programs i visited at the columbia basin student home builders program, got off the ground with a small amount of state financial assistance. and the reason that i wanted to discuss it this afternoon is i think this program that i saw, this student home builders program, can be a model, not just for my state but for the nation. students enroll in this home builders program and work with local construction professionals to actually build houses for their community under the supervision of a teacher, students learn all facets of

planning, designing, and building a new energy efficient home within a budget. during my visit, liz, a star high school student, a senior, gave me a tour of this year's home and it is nothing short of gorgeous. at the end of the school year, this beautiful, custom designed home is going to be sold to a lucky family. students are involved in every bit of the process from planning and design to actual construction to the marketing and sale of the house. revenue from the sale of the home funds the next project so the next round of students in the program get to participate with no future funding required. hermiston's education and

technical courses demonstrate to students that their community leaders are committed to helping them prepare for a successful life right out of high school. one student i met, hanna, told me about a recreation and tourism project that involves starting a hospital quality -- hospitality business. she's working to expand her line of cupcakes to meet customer demands, and i note that the president of the senate has a great interest, as i do, in promoting recreation. that's why i've introduced the rnr bill, the recreation not red tape act, and i was struck by hanna's expertise and i asked this student, i said since you're going to be specializing in this field, and i note the president of the senate probably saw it sunday last "the denver post" had a really extraordinary article describing recreation as

the economic engine of the future. i'm not saying that just because they were kind to the r.n.r. bill but they talked about the promise of recreation and tourism, particularly for our part of the world, and i was so impressed with hanna, i said, i'm going to send you the r.n.r. bill and i would really appreciate you and your colleagues looking for additional ways to cut the red tape and promote recreation and tourism in oregon and throughout the west and support our existing and future businesses. the fact is too many of our students are not graduating high school on time and far too many are unprepared for the work force. research has shown that students enrolled in career and technical education courses graduate from high school at a higher rate. in fact, the students at herm hermiton high school told me that their home builders program made them want to show up for school. i'm committed to increasing

graduation rates in oregon and across the country. i think one of the best ways to do it is to support programs like the one in hermiston because i think it is taylor made to achieve this -- tailor made to achieve this goal. funding for perkins technical education courses is a way to make sure that the programs like the one i just saw can be started around the country, but funding for these programs has been decreasing since 1998. at the time that there is bipartisan consensus that career and technical education programs are important, not just for kids who want to be home builders but all students, it seems to me that overhauling the failed policies of no child left behind, the senate made a choice to move away from the era of overtested bubble kids and toward an era of well-rounded

multiskilled high school graduates. so i'm glad to see that on the senate help committee, the labor and pensions committee, they are working hard on a proposal to reauthorize this career and technical education program known as the perkins law. the last time it was reauthorized was in 2006, so i'm going to work closely with my colleagues there on both sides of the aisle to keep pushing for a new bill. the fact is the educators i saw last week are ambitious by any measure. they saw that their students were not graduating with the skills necessary to be successful in their future school and work lives. local educators started partnerships with architects and engineers and other professionals. they created a unique program that blends innovative classroom instruction with real-world

application. there we have got businesses directly engaging with young people, showing them not just what kinds of jobs are available in the community but also proving that school is an important steppingstone in preparing for the real world. i'll close by way of saying that i have been in public service a while. it's such a tremendous honor to represent oregon in the united states senate, but i'll tell you, watching the way a small community in eastern oregon, hermiston, has come together, made a commitment to their young people is special and it is truly what we call the oregon way. so i will close by way of saying i'm grateful to the high school, hermiston high, allowing me to visit. i'm going to do everything i can to take the student home builder

program that i saw last week and spread the word about what the potential is here. they already sold one house for a very healthy price, and i think we would be wise again here in the senate, i have been mentioning democrats and republicans, to come together, support career technical education programs like the one that i saw in hermiston and urge all of us here in the senate on a bipartisan basis to support a federal and state assistance for these kinds of programs, career and technical education, for even more students from one end of our country to another. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: we are under a quorum call, is that true? the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. carper: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: thank you, mr. president. for some time, i have said, including times on this floor that the choice between a clean environment, clean air, clean water and a strong economy is a false one. some people say you can't have a clean environment and have a

strong economy at the same time. i just don't think that's correct. the toxic substance control act, toxic substance control act, there is an acronym for everything, but we affectionately call it tsca, but the toxic substance control legislation that we approved last night on the floor of this body is proof that we can have a cleaner environment, a safer environment, a healthier environment and a stronger economy. they go together. maybe when i finish my remarks, mr. president, folks will understand why that might be true. but every day in this country, manufacturers use a variety of chemicals. i'm told there are tens of thousands of chemicals on this planet. in the air, in the ground, in the water, in our bodies. tens of thousands in all. that manufacturers use to make everything from carpets like the carpet that we're standing on to cosmetics to water bottles to dish washing soap.

and the toxic substance control act of 1976 which former president gerald ford signed and said it was like landmark legislation, he said this is huge legislation, and in terms of protecting the environment and public health, but he said it was intended to give e.p.a. the authority to monitor and to test chemicals, to regulate the ones that pose a risk to human health or to the environment, that was the deal. but over the past four decades since gerald ford signed that law into law, the toxic substance control act has never worked as intended, never worked as intended, leaving the public at risk for toxic exposures and the private sector with a broken regulatory process that has undermined innovation. and frankly led to a lot of uncertainty, lack of predictability. as a recovering governor, i know that among the things that we need to have a stronger, a more

nurturing environment for job creation, job preservation is businesses, whether they are large or small, they need predictability, they need certainty. and when the federally passed enacted 40 years old law of the substance control act did not provide that certainty. i think in the last 40 years, the e.p.a. has fully vetted six toxic substances. imagine that, in 40 years, six. in the last 20 or 25 years, none. in the meantime, what's happened is states have stood up and say we'll do this. if the federal government is not going to do it, we'll do it. what we now have is a patchwork quilt of state requirements. a variety of businesses in this country that are trying to try to comply with the laws in dozens of states. and when the federal standard that we set 40 years ago just doesn't work, just does not work. so for a while, the toxic

substance control act has been broken. that's a polite way of saying it, but over the past 39 years, we have learned a lot about toxic chemicals. we have learned a lot about the cause -- about how they can cause harm to our environment, they can cause harm to public health. and we have also learned how best to identify and protect against these risks. more than three years ago, two of my colleagues, one a democrat, tom udall of new mexico, the other a republican, dave vitter of louisiana, they wrote something called the frank r. lawpt chemical safety for the 21st century act. frank r. lautenberg chemical safety for the 21st century act. frank lautenberg for many years was a senator from new jersey whose birthday i remember still to this day. he is now deceased, but his birthday, january 23. and the reason why i remember that is that's when my birthday is. this is an issue that we have actually shared a strong interest in doing something

about. my recollection, it is hard to remember because people move around here from desk to desk. his seat was right here back behind where i'm standing today. but my colleague tom udall and david vitter wrote a bill and named it after frank lautenberg because this is an issue he cared a lot about. he also tried not once but several times to write legislation that could be enacted to take that 40-year-old toxic substance control act from 1976 and sort of bring it into the 21st century and help it become effective and to make sense for the digital age. but the bill written by senators udall and vitter reforms the old toxic substance control act, and it does it in ways to better protect the public, to protect us, our families, our businesses and so forth. it would also -- it is also designed to create a more manageable regulatory framework for american businesses and

innovators so they have some predictability and certainty with what to deal with. whether they happen to be doing business in delaware or maryland or virginia or wyoming or idaho or california. they would have some certainties of what the rules of the road were going to be for the toxic substance or the chemicals that they might be using in their processes. after the bill was introduced by senators vitter and udall, i worked closely with both of them for more than a year as a member of the environmental public works committee. we led a number of meetings, meetings, discussions, and we were focused on securing enhanced protections for public health and environment while providing certain predictability for american businesses. i focused especially on language to secure provisions that would protect children, that would protect pregnant women, and protect workers from toxic

risks. the provisions i especially focused on included ensuring that the e.p.a. has access to information in order for them to assess safety risks. and the third area that i looked at was subject to allow states to enforce federal toxic safety. the pa wasn't doing their job -- the e.p.a. wasn't doing their job. if there was a backstop in the way that made sense, i think that's not an unreasonable thing to ask to do. we did that with respect to nationally chartered banks. if the officer controlled the currency and the charter banks is not making sure consumers are being looked after, then we allowed state attorney generals not to write their own regulations and own laws but to enforce federal standards and laws. so i wanted to make sure in the event some day we had an pa that wasn't -- e.p.a. that wasn't interested in enforcing a new

version of the toxic substance control act, that states could step in and enforce it for them. chemical manufacturers and consumers alike deserve legal clarity. timely review process and the ability to trust that products people use every day are safe. i might add, mr. president, senator udall, senator vitter introduced legislation. we started gathering cosponsors. my guess is our presiding officer, and i don't mean to be presumptuous but our presiding officer probably ended up being a cosponsor. at the end of the day we had 30 democrats and 30 republicans. the idea was to add a democrats, add a republican, add a democrats, add a republican. it's a little how a bill is made or should be made, a textbook example of how legislation could be formed, should be formed, even on a difficult contentious issue like the one i'm talking about today. i got involved -- i've been involved already from the very initial efforts to rewrite the

toxic substance control act involved with david vitter and tom udall, and also the chairman of our committee, jim inhofe. but i got to a point where i said to the two coauthors of the legislation, they were looking for cosponsors. i said i would be willing to cosponsor your bill, your investigation of this, the rewrite of the toxic substance control act but there are ten changes i would like for you to consider making. and they said what are they? and i said, well, here is some idea what they are. this enthey said put them in writing. put that in writing. so i put them in writing in a letter to senator vitter, senator udall and said these are ten changes i would like to see made in the bill you've introduced. if you'll make these changes and agree to these changes, i'll cosponsor your bill. and not only will i cosponsor your bill, so will 10 or 11 other democrats. we all signed the letter. we all signed the letter. this was probably a year and a

half ago. and to their credit, the letter is more to senator vitter than to senator udall. i think it went to both. to its credit, senator vitter and his staff went through piece by piece, proposal by proposal, all 10 or 12 of them, ten i think. at the end of the day, they greed effectively -- agreed essentially, effectively with all of them and agreed to incorporate all 10 proposal, and now will you cosponsor the bill? i said yes, i will. so did the rest of us who signed that letter, all ten of us. i also said when i said i would cosponsor the bill, i said there are three areas that still need some work. three areas that still need some work. my passion for pushing for this legislation will be tempered somewhat by your willingness to also act on subsequent changes to the bill on the three areas. i will say later on, a up come of my colleagues, cory booker -- a couple of my colleagues, cory

booker -- let's see, we had i think sheldon whitehouse, maybe jeff merkley, ed markey. they sort of stepped up and said we're interested in those three areas and we want to see further changes made in the bill. and with those changes, we added even more cosponsors and finally ended up with like 60 and said let's take that bill to the senate, report out of committee and eventually worked it through the senate. not easy but finally got it done. went to conference with the house and lo and behold we have a conference report which we passed unanimously here, last night by unanimous consent. nobody objected. consider how controversial this bill has been for years, that is amazing. at a press conference we held today with the -- the principle democrats and republicans, the senate and one of our house members came over. tom udall, senator udall said, he talked about how he felt elated to be able to pass such a

contentious bill after all these years unanimously. and he likened it to standing on a mountaintop. standing on a mountaintop. he's a mountain climber. from new mexico they have tall mountains. he said it was like standing on a tall mountain. he felt elation. he said he felt elation as well. and then when i spoke right after senator udall, i said in delaware we don't have mountains. delaware is the lowesest lying state in america. we really worry about climate change and sea level rise for us. it's not just some theory. it's something we worry b. it's -- the highest point of land in delaware is a bridge. and every now and then if i want to get really high and climb -- so that i can climb the bridge, it's not really that high. the thing that gives me elation in delaware is when i was governor and before that, state treasury, the thing that gave me great elation in my state is when we all worked together. delaware has a tradition called

the delaware way where democrats and republicans work together, set aside their partisan differences and say what is the right thing to do? delaware is a small state. pretty much the key stakeholders are in a room and we work out a lot of our differences in a couple of hours. it's pretty amazing how it works sometime. and i share with my colleagues today an african proverb. mr. president, you possibly heard this before. you probably used this before. but it goes something like this. if you want to travel fast, go alone. if you want to travel far, go together. let me say that again. if you want to travel fast, go alone. if you want to travel far, go together. that's especially true in the senate. you need 60 votes to get anything done. we have 55 republicans, roughly 45 democrats and maybe an independent in there somewhere. so we've got to figure out how

to travel together. and we have been traveling a long ways over the last four years or so. but we finally have gotten to our destination. i think we've gotten to a very good outcome in terms of the policy that we've adopted. but for the first time the legislation has been agreed to by the house and the senate. it's going to be sent now to the president. we require that every chemical used -- it will require that every chemical used in consumer products is assessed for safety. i'll say that again. every chemical used in consumer products is assessed for safety. at the same time, legislation will offer businesses a predictable and a manageable regulatory framework, not a whole bunch of different regulatory frameworks but one for chemicals that do not pose a safety hazard. we've been struggling in negotiating this bill in the senate as i said for a long time, maybe as much as half a dozen years. been a lot of give and take by

both sides of the aisle to get us to where we are last night and today. and we are aware -- we are where we are today because both sides worked together to compromise on policy without compromising on our principles. right behind me i mentioned frank lautenberg used to sit at one of these desks behind me. so did ted kennedy. i'll never forget when i was fairly new in the senate having lunch with him. i wasn't sure that we had the kind of interpersonal relationship that i wanted. this place -- the presiding officer knows a lot on relationships. i said to him, i said maybe some day i can just come to your office and sit and talk with you for a while, have a cup of coffee. he said why don't you come to my hideaway and we'll have lunch together. i said really? and he said yeah. and in a week or two we went to his hideaway and we had lunch together. and his hideaway was just an amazing place, almost like a museum in terms of all things

about the kennedy family and his brothers and his own life. it was an amazing place. among the things we talked about that day were his ability to find compromising consensus with one of our current colleagues, a guy named mike enzi, a wonderful guy named mike enzi who the presiding officer knows is one of the two officers from wyoming, former mayor of gillette, accountant. i think maybe c.p.a. once when i was presiding over the senate years ago, i remember mike enzi coming to the floor, getting recognized and speaking, talking, and he started talking about the 80-20 rule and how the 80-20 rule allowed the folks -- he was the senior republican on a committee called help, health, education, labor and pensions committee. ted kennedy was a senior democrat on the health -- on the help committee. it was an incredibly productive committee, incredibly productive committee. all kinds of bipartisan legislation coming out of it. and i asked later on that day, i

said to senator enzi off the floor, i said, how do you and ted kennedy manage to get so much done in the senate, health, education, labor and pension? he said it's the 8 on-20 rule -- 80-20 rule. what is that? ted kennedy and i agree on 80 % of the stuff. we disagree on maybe another 20% and focus on the 80% where we agree and we set aside the other 20% to another day and we'll figure that out some other time. when i talked to ted kennedy about the same thing, he said, i'm always willing to compromise on policy, on process. he said i just don't want to compromise on my principles. on my principles. he and mike enzi had an incredibly productive partnership on that committee and here in the senate. senator kennedy had a similar relationship with orrin hatch who now chairs the finance committee as we know. but we are where we are today

because both democrats and republicans have worked together to compromise on policy without having to compromise our principles. the final product is testament to a robust and a trants parent committee process -- transparent committee process. i think it's a textbook example of how we ought to legislate around here. if we can get something that difficult, that complex, that controversial behind us i think in an appropriate way and get support of environmental groups, business groups, democrats, republicans, you know, maybe there's some other things we can get done. god knows we need to. i'm proud of the work that we've done together to reach this historic agreement. and in addition to thanking senators udall and senator vitter and the chairman of our environmental public works committee, senator inhofe, i also want to say a special thank you to the members of our staff.

i think those of us who serve, are privileged to serve with senators, we work hard. but on this issue and some of us worked hard on this issue, but the folks who really worked hard on this issue were the members of our staff. and i'm not going to go through all the name, of folks who worked for this senator or that senator, but i just want to say to those of you, you know who you are, thank you. you've done great work and enabled us to do the people's work. and i would say to a fellow who was a member of my staff for the last maybe three years who worked really day and night on this legislation, a fella who works for the los angeles transit authority out on the west coast, just a special shout out to him, a special thank you to him for all of his efforts. and, mr. president, i think that's pretty much it for me today. i see we're being joined by it looks like a young man from

minnesota who's -- who has a hungry look on his face. he hungers to share something with all of us. with that having been said, i will yield the floor to senator franken of minnesota. senator franken. mr. franken: thank you, my good friend from delaware. mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. mr. franken: i rise today to address the nomination of chief justice merrick garland to the united states supreme court. today marks 84 days since president obama nominated judge garland to fill the vacant seat on the supreme court bench. in that time the consequences of permitting that vacancy to persist have become clear. the eight-member court has now deadlocked four times. in two cases where the court found itself evenly divided and

unable to reach consensus, it punted sending cases back to the lower courts. there's no denying it the senate's refusal to do its job, to take up the business of filling that vacancy means that in some cases the court is not able to fulfill its core function, meaning some cases the court does not resolve circuit splits and cannot serve as the final arbiter of the law. that's not just my view. that's an opinion shared by one of the court's current members, associate justice anthony kennedy. testifying before the house appropriations committee back in 2013, justice kennedy described what happens when the court is short staffed, and although he was discussing the effect of

recusals on the ability of the court to do its job, his comments are no less relevant in the case of a vacancy. this is what justice kennedy said, and i quote -- "on our court, if we recuse without absolutely finding it necessary to do so, then you might have a 4-4 court and everybody's time is wasted. let me say that again. everybody's time is wasted. well, mr. president, my republican colleagues don't seem to be bothered by wasting everybody's time. 116 days ago, less than an hour after the news of justice scalia's death, the majority leader proclaimed the senate would not consider a replacement until after the presidential election. he said -- quote -- "the american people should have a voice in the selection of their next supreme court justice.

in the 116 days since the majority leader made that bold announcement, republican senator after republican senator has taken to the senate floor to deliver variations on that theme. my good friend, senator cornyn, helpfully explained that senate republicans had made a decision to -- quote -- give the voters a voice on who makes the next lifetime appointment to the supreme court. he said -- quote -- "i want to be clear that the american people do deserve a voice here, and we will make sure that they are heard. we have been through this before, mr. president. we agree the american people should have a voice in this process, and they did. they elected barack obama to be president of the united states, and by my read of the constitution, article 2, section 1, to be exact, the president shall -- quote -- hold his office during the term of four

years, a term which has not yet expired, so it seems clear to me in the text of our founding democracy that our citizens have a voice in this process. president ronald reagan made this point quite eloquently when he presided over the swearing in of not just william rehnquist as chief justice of the supreme court but also one antonin scalia as associate justice. president reagan explained that -- quote -- the founding fathers recognized that the constitution is the supreme and ultimate expression of the will of the american people. and of course president reagan was right. the founding fathers recognized that the very purpose of the constitution was to embody the spirit and the voice of the american people, so i find it

preposterous when my republican colleagues who purport to revere the constitution and the framers ' original intent insist that the only way to guarantee that the people's voice is heard is to delay filling the vacancy, because after all the founding fathers didn't just contemplate such a situation, they actually experienced it. when president john adams, himself a founding father and a drafter of the declaration of independence, was presented with the opportunity to point -- to appoint a supreme court justice, he was himself a lame-duck president. the chief justice at the time, oliver elsworth, resigned after the 1800 presidential election, an election that president adams

lost. nevertheless, adams set about the work of selecting a replacement, and when he eventually nominated john marshall in january of 1801, more than two months after losing the election to a president of a different party, and the country still didn't know who that would be because jefferson -- thomas jefferson and aaron burr had tied, but they were not his political party -- adams, despite an unresolved election and in the face of great uncertainty, he appointed, he nominated justice marshall, and the senate took up john marshall's nomination and confirmed him to the post of chief justice on january 27,

1801 by voice vote. john adams was by every definition of the term a lame-duck president. the senate could have refused to fill the vacancy. they could have left the supreme court short staffed. senators could have insisted that the seat not be filled until it was clear just exactly who the american people had selected as their next president. but the senate recognized that it had a constitutional obligation to confirm a replacement. and that should come as no surprise because of the 32 senators serving in the senate, five of them had been delegates to the constitutional convention. abraham baldwin of georgia,

jonathan dayton of new jersey, john langdon of new hampshire, governor morris of new york, whose first name was governor. he wasn't a governor. his mother's maiden name was governor. and charles pinkney of south carolina. all of them real -- these are real founding fathers. if anyone should have known what the constitution required in this situation, it was them. now, picture them milling about the floor of the old senate chamber on january 27, 1801, talking amongst themselves to their colleagues and whipping votes. now, at the time the senate's practice was to consider nominations in an executive session with the doors closed. only senators and certain staff

were allowed in the chamber and the proceedings were intended to be secret, so the congressional record contains no debate on john marshall's nomination, so we can only imagine what the senator said, but i suspect it went something like this. well, john, abraham, governor, i suppose we should vote now on the president's nomination to the supreme court. why, yes, jonathan, of course. i remember when we wrote it into the constitution that when a vacancy occurs, the president shall appoint a nominee to fill the vacancy, and we senators shall provide our advice and consent. well, yes, john, i recall the day we wrote that. you were in a particularly good mood because your wife betsy had arrived by carriage the night before from new hampshire.

oh, yes, abraham, i recall that well. after all, it was only 13 years ago. and the next day we wrote the provisions about the supreme court. i remember very well how specific we were. the president appoints a nominee in the event of a vacancy, and we in the senate do our job by providing advice and consent. so by all means, let's vote. these men, these founding fathers set aside whatever reservations they may have had about the unique circumstances surrounding john marshall's nomination. a lame-duck president. of a different party than the party that won the presidential election.

and they allowed the senate to hold the vote. these are founding fathers who wrote the constitution. as a consequence, john marshall went on to serve as our nation's fourth chief justice, authorizing opinions that make up the foundation of constitutional law. it was obvious to those founding fathers in the senate, as it should be to all of us serving here today that the supreme court is too important, too central to our democracy to ignore. i urge my colleagues, particularly those motivated by if i dealt to the framers' original intent to end their

obstruction and grant the president's nominee full and fair consideration. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. daines: mr. president, i rise to speak on amendment number 4251. i filed the amendment. i have not yet requested it to be made pending, but i would like to see this amendment moved through. it seeks to remove the president's authority to deny troops their mandated pay raise. the issue of paying our troops should not be a partisan issue any longer. we have fought this battle for too many years on the senate floor. this year i put forth a bipartisan solution with my colleague from montana, jon tester, and with senators rubio, senator portman and senator boozman, it is a long-term solution. since 2004, the president has been required by law to give troops a pay raise matching the employment cost index, also

called the e.c.i., but when we mandated that the president raise troop pay with the e.c.i., we gave the ability for an exemption, and that is when the country is facing serious economic conditions or for matters of national security. now, citing economic conditions, the president has used this exemption to pass three years and use it again this year, all while citing a growing economy, and what happens is our troops are not getting the pay raise that congress says they should, matching the e.c.i. and when we're facing economic uncertainty, that is when our troops need it the most, and the amendment is very clear cut. it removes the president's authority and future presidents' authority to cite economic concerns when sending over a press detention -- presidential budget requests without the mandated pay raise, and it's clear this exemption is being

abused. for example, in 2016, in his state of the union address, president obama said, and i quote, anyone claiming that america's economy is in decline is peddling fiction, but just one month later, in his fiscal year 2017 budget request he sent to congress, president obama cited -- quote -- economic concerns affecting the general welfare and only asked for a 1.6% pay raise for our troops, despite the e.c.i. being 2.1%. as we continue to debate this bill and call up amendments, i urge my colleague to support amendment 4251. again, we have got good bipartisan support on it. this is a long-term solution. this is not just about the current president. this is about future presidents as well and the problems that we continue to face. that is one for troops who have not seen a pay raise over 2% in the past six years. as our nation continues to find it threatened abroad, we rely on our troops now more than ever.

they deserve better. it's time to act. i want to thank senator tester, senator rubio, senator portman, senator boozman for their support, and i yield the floor. ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today to speak in support of an amendment offered by the senior senator from alaska, senator murkowski, to strike the changes to the basic allowance for housing or b.a.h. that are proposed in section 604 of the defense authorization bill. this amendment, mr. president, is very similar to one that i filed this year as well as one that i sponsored last year. currently, each service member receives a housing stipend based on his or her rank, geographic

location and dependency status. under section 604, however, this part of the military compensation package would no longer be considered a cash allowance. instead, mr. president, service members would be compensated on an actual cost pwaeufsz similar to the system that was in place in the 1990's which resulted in a burdensome and inefficient administrative approval process. notably, mr. president, the 2015 military compensation and retirement modernization commission established by the fiscal year 2013 national defense authorization act examined the issue of allowances as it assessed the military's

compensation and retirement systems. the commission found that the current allowance system strikes an appropriate balance in providing compensation to military members and assistance for their living expenses. the commission deliberately chose not to recommend any changes to the allowance system, and this view is shared by the department of defense. in fact, the secretary of the navy called to express to me his concerns about this provision today. in its statement of administration policy, the administration notes that it strongly objects to section 604, which in its words would inappropriately penalize some service members over others by

linking their b.a.h. payments to their status as members of dual military couples. in other words, members of our military who are married to other service members. under section 604, both members of a dual military couple would be provided a lesser compensation package than other members of equal grade, sending a message that their service is not as highly valued. the statement of administration policy went on to note that section 604 would disproportionately affect female service members and those military families in which both military members have chosen to serve our country. mr. president, 20% of service

women are married to other service members. 20%. by comparison, only 3.8% -- in other words, less than 4% -- of active duty men are married to other service members. thus, women are five times more likely to be affected by this reduction in housing allowances than their male counterparts. five times more likely for women service members to be affected because they're more likely to be married to service members. this proposed change would similarly penalize or junior service members who are more likely to live with another service member as a roommate to help defray cost-of-living

expenses. as such, this provision could have a profound implication for both recruitment and retention of our all-volunteer force and discourage our best and our brightest from staying in the service. now i do recognize that the department's personnel costs are a budget concern, but finding savings that unfairly single out some military members is not the way to do it, particularly when one considers the growing role that women service members are playing and which i strongly support and admire. last year i spearheaded a successful movement to remove a similar provision from the fiscal year 2016 to ndaa.

i'm disappointed to see that this proposal has resurfaced again this year, and i'm pleased to work with my colleague from alaska, senator murkowski, to remove a provision that i believe is both unfair and harmful. i do recognize the very difficult task that the senate armed services committee had in putting together this bill, and i want to commend both the chairman, senator mccain, and the ranking member, senator jack reed, for their terrific work on so many issues. i do hope that they will look again at this particular cut in the basic housing allowance and support our amendment. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president? -p. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois.

mr. durbin: i ask consent to speak in morning business. we know the senate of the united states is composed of two senators from each state. today i have news. my home state of illinois picked up a third senator. last month the irish prime minister announced eight appointees to the irish senate. one of the appointees is my dear friend in chicago, billy lawless. billy is the first irish citizen living in the united states to be appointed to the irish senate. this is truly historic. today billy takes his seat in the irish senate ireland will get a senator who will fight for the disenfranchised, the dispossess and those yearning to work hard for a better life. no one has been a stronger voice for the irish diaspora and immigration reform than billy lawless of chicago, illinois. prime minister kin ni couldn't have made a better voice. for generations sons and daughters of the emerald isle

landed here in search of the american dream. as a young boy billy grew up in a city in western ireland delivering milk to local restaurants and hotels. as an adult he made a name for himself as a prominent businessman. he ran p*ubs, restaurants and hotels. life was good but for years he had a dream of opening a restaurant in the united states. when his youngest daughter earned a full college scholarship in the united states, billy took thats a a sign from heaven. he moved his family to america. as 48 years in galway he wanted to see if he could live in the united states. he went to boston, philadelphia, but on december 31, 1997, new year's eve, an historic day, billy lawless arrived in chicago, a newly found home. from galway, that most irish of irish cities, to chicago, the most irish of american st*eus,

it was a perfect transition. within six months billy opened an establishment known as the irish oak a couple miles south of wrigley field. today he opens four restaurants and a fifth one is about to open. all the lawless restaurants are known for three things, great food, great fun and great people. simply put the lawless family is restaurant loyalty in chicago. the family business started with ten employees, now they have 300. since arriving in chicago nearly 20 years ago, billy has brought new energy to the city, irish energy, hard work, a stubborn drive to succeed. with the help of his great wife ann and his four children, billy jr., amy, john paul, and koda, billy achieved the american dream. now billy could have said i achieved my american dream, good luck with yours. that's not who he is. after all, billy is irish. he looks out for his friends and neighbors. the first bar he opened, the

irish oak, became a favorite for irish construction workers. many were undocumented and asked for billy's help in getting their papers in order. billy never hesitated. he became their champion and a strong defender of irish everywhere. when asked why he took such a strong interest in the issue he said that's what irish do for one another. when he learned those same problems were shared by others billy became an eloquent advocate for all immigrants. billy lawless gets it. he understands that protecting immigrants' rights is part of the strength of our immigrant nation. and i know he'll continue to be an energetic and passionate guardian of the irish diaspora and all immigrants' rights from his seat in the irish senate. the united states and ireland have long and proud histories forged in fires of rebel kwrus spirit united in friendship. ville billy's voice in the irish

senate represents the best of both the irish and american spirit. it was only two years ago that i came to the senate floor to congratulate billy and his wife ann on becoming citizens in the united states. they waited a long time and they worked hard for it and i was proud to call them not just my friends but my fellow americans. today i am proud to call billy lawless my fellow senator. congratulations on a well-deserved honor. a senator: mr. president? mr. durbin: i was going to make another statement. ask consent to make another statement in a separate part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. durbin i rise today -- mr. durbin: i rise today to make a another remark.

last week donald trump attacked a federal judge gonzalo curiel. mr. trump referred to judge curiel's heritage in a lengthy tirade about the judge's ruling in the case. he also called judge curiel, a -- quote -- "hater" and -- quote -- "total disgrace" suggesting the judge should recuse himself due to his -- quote -- "negative" rulings. when pressed on the issue mr. trump doubled down. in an interview with the "wall street journal" published last thursday, mr. trump stated that judge curiel had -- quote -- "an absolute conflict" in presiding over the lawsuit because the judge is -- quote -- "of mexican heritage." mr. trump went on to explain that the judge's ethnicity presents a -- quote -- "inherent conflict of interest" because of mr. trump's campaign pledge to build a wall on the u.s. border

to mexico. let me be clear, mr. trump's attacks on judge curiel have been characterized even by republican senators and congressmen as racist, inappropriate, and completely unfounded. judge curiel is an american. he was born in east chicago, indiana, just steps away from the border of my state. his parents emigrated from mexico to the united states. he has a distinguished record. after attending law school at indiana university, judge curiel practiced law in indiana and california. in 1989 he joined the u.s. attorney's office in the southern district of california. as a federal prosecutor, judge curiel served in the narcotics enforcement division and worked to bring down drug cartels. after prosecuting a major cartel, he received a death threat and was forced to live under guard for months. in 2007, he was appointed by a republican governor in california to serve as a state

judge. president obama later nominated judge curiel to the federal bench, the senate confirmed his nomination by unanimous vote september 22, 2012. judge curiel is well respected in the legal community. a former colleague said that -- quote -- "his integrity is beyond reproach. " and a california attorney who led the screening committee that reviewed judge curiel in 2011 said -- quote -- "he was very highly recommended. no one could say a bad thing about him." despite these accomplishments, donald trump views curiel as incapable of serving as an impartial jurist in this case involving trump university due to the judge's ethnicity. mr. trump believes the lawsuit that judge curiel is presiding over should have been dismissed long ago. maybe mr. trump should take a closer look at reality. multiple lawsuits have been filed against mr. trump's so-called university and in one

of the two lawsuits that judge curiel is presiding over, former students allege that mr. trump and trump university defrauded them by making misrepresentations about the education they would receive. the plaintiffs provided evidence to support their claims and as a result judge curiel denied a motion from mr. trump to grant summary judgment in his favor which would have avoided a trial. nothing in this ruling suggests a lack of impartiality. instead judge curiel's ruling indicate a factual dispute exists in the case and the plaintiffs deserve their day in court. unfortunately reality and the facts don't seem to matter to mr. trump. instead of acknowledging the inappropriateness of his attacks on judge curiel's character and heritage, he's doubled down on them. mr. trump apparently believes that after he bullies and demeans a group of people, he should never have to face a member of that community in a courtroom. one of mr. trump's most represent prehence seubl

statements -- and there are mand complete ban on muslim immigrants coming to the united states of america. in an interview that aired on face the nation on sunday, mr. trump was asked -- quote -- "if it were a muslim judge, would you also feel like they wouldn't be able to treat you fairly because of that policy of yours?" he go responded -- quote -- "it's possible. yeah, that would be possible. absolutely." end of quote. where does mr. trump's twisted logic end? does his crude attack on a disabled reporter present a conflict of interest for a judge with a disability who presides over a case against him? do his disparaging words about women disqualify female judges for priewling on lawsuits filed against his failed business ventures? his assertions are not only bigoted, they also -- as he aspires to the highest nofts land and again and again they

raise serious questions about his judgment. despite these concerns, senate republicans are keeping 89 federal judicial seats vacant on the executive calendar of this senate, including an empty seat on the u.s. supreme court in the hopes that donald trump will be able to fill those vacancies. after mr. trump's racist die a trierks yo i'd like to ask my colleagues how they can possibly trust mr. trump to appoint judges to the federal bench. are they comfortable with a potential president who believes that the only qualified candidates are those that possess racial or other characteristics that he has not yet disparaged? it is a risky and constitutionally dangerous bet and placing that trust in trump would threaten grave harm to our system of justice and to the rule of law. i thought or hoped we had moved past the dark in the meantime our nation's history when

defendants believe it was aappropriate to try to remove judges from a lawsuit on the basis of race. it was just over 40 years ago an african-american federal judge named loen higginbottom presided over a class action lawsuit involving civil rights claims. the defendants in the lawsuit filed motions to disqualify him from the case based on his race. he wrote the following, "it will be a tragic day for the nation and judiciary if a myopic vision of the judge's rule should prevail, a vision that required judges to refrain from participating in their churches, in their nonpolitical community affairs, in their universities. so long as jewish judges preside over matters where jewish and gentile litigants disagree, so long as protestant judges preside over matters where process tess tants and catholic litigants disagree, so long as white judges preside over matters where white and black

litigants disagree, i will preside over matters where black and white litigants disagree. in light of mr. trump's reprehensible remarks, judge higginbottom's words have taken ton a renewed resonance. if mr. trump's myopic vision prevails, it will be indeebd a tragic day for the nation. i yield the floor. mr. leahy: mr. president, i think the senator from georgia's -- the presiding officer: the the senator from georgia. mr. leahy: and, mr. president, if the senator from juror would yield for me to make a unanimous consent request. zach stack would i yield? mr. leahy: without losing your -- dakota zach -- mr. isakson: i yield. mr. leahy: i ask that the be recognized following the remarks of the senator from georgia. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. isakson: mr. president, could i ask unanimous consent that the distinguished senator from alaska, ms. murkowski, follow the senator from vermont? the presiding officer: is there objection?

without objection. mr. isakson: thank you very much, mr. president. mr. president, last week the attorney general of the united states of america had cent thrower kevin mccarthy, the majority leader of the united states house, to inform mr. mccarthy and all of us that she would not defend the administration on the constitutional challenge to the firing of sharon helen. a firing that took place because she had manipulated books and overseen the manipulation of appointments to the point where as many as 40 veterans waiting in line to get their first appointment died before ever being seen by the v.a. she was convicted for taking illegal gratuities. she filed a constitutional challenge to whether or not we had the ability in the administration to fire her constitutionally. and loretta lynch has said she's not going to defend the united states or the law that we passed called the veterans accountability and choice act which calls for the firing of

employees by the secretary of defense for due cause. today it was announced that the veterans administration is firing three more employees of the veterans administration hospital yet in the shadow of that, loretta lynch is telling the country she is not going to defend the country. there is a solution to this problem, mr. president. it's called the veterans first act which is written originally by 19 members of the senate, all members of the veterans' affairs committee. it's been signed and cosponsored by 43 other members of the senate, which once and for all ends the hide-and-go-seek that takes place in the vents administration. it takes the veterans administration out from under the merit system protection board for all senior executive leadership. in other words, the 434 certain executives in the veterans administration now protected by the merit system protection board no longer would be protected by that board but instead would be subject to the sebt's firing or the secretary's hiring and any appeal for action

taken by the secretary will be to the secretary not to the merit system protection board. the american people and the brave veterans who have fought and sacrificed for this country deserve the right to know that if they are injured by veterans administration or if the veterans administration is not carrying out what it's supposed to do for them, we will take action. i resent the fact that the attorney general of the united states of america has chosen to not defend a constitutional challenge to our that is right which this congress passed and our president signed to ghaif authority to the secretary, bob mcdonald, and who ever would follow him. but that's not the only thing nays the veterans first afnlgt for the first time ever we're going to give caregiver benefits to vietnam era veterans who today can't get the same benefits that post 9/11 veterans get. that's been wrong and we're fixing that. we're dealing with the opioid problem that started in toma hospital in wisconsin and correcting that and putting in good standards for the use of opiates and the use of them in

therapies. we're cleaning up the mental health access situation to improve mental health access for all of our veterans. we're giving the type of disman to the leaders of the veterans administration to see that our hospitals are run luke they should the veterans get the services they deserve and we return our -- our veterans who return home aver fighting for us, the best system we can possibly give. i urge the president of the senate, the other members of the senate, to join with me when our bill comes to the floor and pass the veterans first act which brings about real accountability in the veterans administration, real choice for the veterans, real care for our vietnam veterans, real addressing the opioid problem and a comprehensive reform of the veterans administration that hasn't taken place in decades and decades. i commend the members of the veterans affairs committee for their leadership, thank the president and presiding officer for the time and yield to the distinguished senator from vermont. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: thank you, mr. president. i thank my distinguished

colleague from georgia. mr. president, i have looked at the national defense authorization act, and parts of it are kind of hard to understand. it appears that the chairman of the armed services committee believes that $602 billion is not enough for the department of defense. $602 billion. now, one would think they'd reject unnecessary spending for weapons, for programs the pentagon says it doesn't want or need, but the senator from arizona says we should fund these unnecessary weapons and programs but also to spend another $18 billion on defense.

now, others can debate and defend or contest the assumptions on which the chairman's amendment is based, but i'd like to speak briefly in support of the second-degree amendment offered by the ranking member of the armed services committee, senator reed of rhode island. because if there's one thing we've learned over and oarvetion it's that protecting u.s. national security is not only about a strong military that can respond when all other options fail, it's also about homeland security, including border control, maintaining critical infrastructure. it's about law enforcement within the united states. it's about cybersecurity, one of the greatest threats we face. it's about educating the next generation of americans and

creating jobs that lead to advancements in science and technology. and it's about strengthening the capabilities of our foreign partners, enactin and being aina leader in -- and acting as a leader in diplomatic efforts to respond to threats of global security. the fiscal year 2017 budget allocation for the department of state and foreign operations is $591 million below fiscal year 2016. that, coupled with the fact that the president's budget underfunds programs for refugees, other victims of disasters, by $1 billion actually presents us with an untenable budgetary situation. the amendment offered by the senior senator from rhode island would help to alleviate this

shortfall. now, we know, just watching the news, you know there are foreign crises all over the world. but senator reed's amendment focuses on one area where the situation is particularly dire. it includes $1.9 billion to support the department of state, the u.s. agency for international development, to implement their portions of what's called the integrated campaign plan to counter the islamic state of iraq and the will he vangts. -- and the levant. it will also provide funding for embassy security. it would provide additional assistance for israel and jordan and lebanon. jordan and lebanon have been is severely impacted by the influx of hundreds of thousands of syrian refugees. now, that is directly related to u.s. security interests in the

middle east. at a time when the stability of the entire region is under threat. i looked at june 2 piece in "time" ma magazine. retired james conway, a man many of us know, former commandant of the marine corps, and retired admiral james m. malloy wrote -- quote -- "the security challenges our nation faces today are not the same as when we began our service during the cold war. 21st century problems require fine scalpels." the military is a broad sword. "we can start by better resourcing and strengthening you are own institutions -- our own institutions. the state department, the peace corps, usaid are the front lines for keeping our country safe, but they're underfunded and

undermanned." and i ask consent that the statement by the general and the admiral be included at the end of my comments. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: thank you. mr. president, we should also remember that we voted on the balanced budget act. we voted on it because it is based on paimplet et spend -- on parity. the spending caps we put in place and everybody praised, they have consequence for both defense and non-defense sides of the ledger. the senator from arizona's one-dimensional approach ignores this bipartisan compromise supported by both the republicans and democrats. his amendment ignores the essential roles of development and diplomacy and play in national security. it ignores the domestic components, like a well-trained work, if a reliable infrastructure like energy or

independence or like health systems that have the resources to protect the public from infectious diseases or contaminated drinking water or unsafe food. that's part of the our security. if you ask the american people whether these investmentvestmenn security are as important as, they'd emphatically answer yes. that's why the very name of the balanced budget act includes the word "balance." so i hope the amendment of the senator from rhode island is passed overwhelmingly. it means when we talk about balancing the budget, we actually meant what we said. when we voted for this law, we actually meant it. it wasn't just a campaign slogan. mr. president, i see the distinguished senior senator from alaska on the floor. i'd yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent take privileges of the floor be granted to the following interns, corian bean, clara baldwin, desiree cleary, teresa robol, carl lundren, robert owe donahue, andrea whitey, lauren levinson for the month of june and also ask that privileges of the floor be granted to tyler schroeder for the balance of the time. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. ms. murkowski: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today to speak about an amendment that i have filed to the national defense authorization bill. this is amendment number 4222 and it addresses an issue of great interest to our military families, not only in my state

where we are proud to host a strong contingent of military who defend our nation but this is an issue that really goes across the spectrum, across the country. what we propose an amendment 422 is to strike section 604 of the ndaa which represents really a paradigm shift in the way that the basic allowance for housing is paid to our active duty members. department of defense and our military families have long believed that b.a.h. is part of total compensation. effectively it's part of your paycheck, it's part of what you earn, it's something that you can count on based on where you are posted, what your rank is, and whether or not you have any dependents.

and we have seen over the years the b.a.h. be subject to i think arbitrary and somewhat unfair reductions in recent years as it's been kind of the bill payer for other priorities, but i do think that when we think about the base allowance for housing and what it means and why it has been put in place, this is something that again we look to very critically to ensure that fairness for those who serve our country is paramount. section 604 turns the b.a.h. into a reimbursement program. so basically you're going from a compensation program to a reimbursement program. so effectively, you're being asked to turn your receipts into an accounting office and

basically plead your entitlement to that reimbursement for the cost of your housing as well as your utilities. i suppose alternatively, you could take your entitlement and accept the risk that some audit and some kind of verification process will require you perhaps to pay something back, perhaps a lot back. section 604 is not clear how this whole verification process will work. and believe me, when i had an opportunity to visit with military spouses in fort wayne just last week, they asked me how does this reimbursement work. how do i get these statements, utility statements in for reimbursement. we're already sitting in a situation where they're -- where there are not enough people to process the basic paperwork that goes on for reimbursement of other expenses. tell me how this is going to be

a better system. they certainly spoke from a perspective and a position of being very familiar with deep bureaucracy and perhaps a fair amount of hassle. but i heard loud and clear from these military spouses the concerns that they had about a proposal that they're looking at and says this is effectively a one-size-fits-all solution that perhaps is not a well formed solution and could have extreme consequences for those who serve in highly rural places, like in alaska. in alaska the b.a.h. doesn't only pay for the house. it pays for the utilities. okay, you understand you got to pay for your lights and for your heat, but keep in mind what it means to be in a very remote,

very rural place. in places like fair banks where you're limited in terms of your options for your energy, for your power, your costs are high. you could be looking at a home heating fuel bill on a monthly basis that could actually exceed the cost of your mortgage. you may be in the enviable position of having found a home out in the community that you think is affordable. the monthly rent that you're paying is affordable. the mortgage might be affordable, but if it's an older house, if it is not further weatherized, if you're a home heating fuel, again you may be looking at a situation where you're paying more in utilities than you are paying for the cost

of your housing. other things that you might be expected to incur in terms of the cost, utilizing what you get from the b.a.h. in addition to high cost of heating, paying for snow removal. not an option to not have your snow removed and if your spouse is deployed, you need a way to get out of a long driveway. who's going to be paying for the snow removal? it pays sometimes to pump out the septemberic systems which have -- septic systems which have to be done on somewhat of a quarterly basis because you have so many homes that are not on water and sewer. oh, by the way, when we're talking about water, does the cost for hauling water, is that also part of what will be recoverable under this new reimbursement program? because, yes, when you don't have, when you're not on water system, you've got to get your

water from somewhere. so many homes in the fairbanks area, many of these spouses, these military families that are at fort wayne wright -- fort wainwright are having their water -- paying for their water hauled by a truck or go out to the community tap to fill up their tank but there is a cost associated with that. so these spouses are asking me, well, how is that going to be accommodated in this? will this be considered part of these allowable reimbursements? this is all very troubling to me. it was certainly, certainly very troubling to them. it's not like our military families don't have enough to worry about. i had one military spouse tell me the situation in their family. she is a licensed attorney in another state. she hasn't been able to get waived into practice in the state of alaska. her husband is an e7 soldier,

been in for 19 years so you have effectively two professionals. they have three children. she says that she spends about $1,500 a month for food, formula and diapers for the three small children. she pays $38,000 a year for her child care, child care in and around the fort wainwright area is very expensive and she's not able toet the reim%ment for -- reimbursement for child care because she is not working. she's trying to get that job but recognizing that you've got all of these other costs on top of it all. this military spouse, two professionals in the household, three children, tells me that their family is wick eligible. the stories that i hear about our military families who are accessing our community food

banks. our military families are worrying, and they're worrying about what is happening at home, the financial issues that they are faced with. one of the concerns that i heard specifically was if this is a reimbursement system and i have to submit receipts for expenses that again may exceed the cost of your housing, exceed the cost of a mortgage, and it just takes a long while to get this reimbursement, what happens if my job requires that security clearance and that security clearance requires that your credit record be absolutely impeccable? how is all this going to work? so there's so much stress, so much anxiety that i heard with these spouses as we were discussing these issues. you know, when you think about what our military families are worried about, they're focused

on the stress that comes with forced structure reductions, frequent p.c.s. move, needing to understand the latest and greatest tricare complexity, figuring out whether the old retirement paradigm or the new retirement paradigm is better, and then you have this. you have yet another layer of complexity with this section 604 that just adds to the stress, adds to the anxiety. i think we have to -- i think we've got to be honest with one another. we've got to be honest with our military families. the bill before us does not afford those who serve a pay increase that is commensurate with the value of their service. thankfully we're working on a fix on that. i greatly appreciate the leadership of senator mccain on this and his willingness to work with so many of us on these issues that are of concern to our families. but when we look at what is

going on now with b.a.h., i think that we're messing with a very significant component of total compensation, and that is simply not an appropriate way to thank the families that have already suffered through multiple deployments in iraq and afghanistan. now they have to contend with the host of uncertainties that are created by the rise of isil, the tensions on the korean peninsula, a resurgent russia, ambitious china. this is not -- this is not right for our military families. the pentagon has issued a statement of administration policy. they're quite clear where they are on this. they believe that section 604 is damaging to the force. that's why they oppose this section 604. it's burdensome. again, moving from a

compensation approach to a reimbursement approach, it's inefficient. it appears to completely eliminate the b.a.h. increment presently paid to families with children. it penalizes dual military couples, and it disproportionately impacts female service members. think about that. and that's because you have about 20% of the women on active duty who are in a dual military marriage compared to about 3.8% of active duty men. so you're effectively taking a harder hit really with the women who are in active duty. if you don't think this is not going to have an impact on recruitment and retention, i think you're going to be looking at some second order consequences with respect to that, and also as it relates to

administration of the g.i. bill education benefit. now, i mentioned the effective penalty on dual military couples. and i heard from some when i was up in alaska, and i know a dual career military couple. i'm pleased to know that their military career has taken them to some pretty good places. one spouse has been selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel two years below the zone. that's a really very big deal. this week his wife learned that she, too, has been selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel, one year below the zone. so you can see both of these individuals are very high performers, really rock stars, if you will, when it comes to

competitive promotion environment. so they're doing great. but they're looking at the impact that this section 604 will have on their specific situation as a dual military couple. they estimate that if their next assignment is here in the lower 48, they will lose about $20,000 from their compensation if -- we are fortunate in alaska that they should both get assigned to alaska on the next rotation, that number, that hit to them rises to $29,000, almost $30,000 deduction or reduction from what they as a military couple have seen. that's -- that is significant.

and again, these are exactly, exactly the kinds of people that the private sector wants to recruit but our military wants to retain. and, you know, i'm not the only person that appreciates this fact. when i was in fort wainwright, i had one militar spouse, dual military. she said i should -- she says who i am married to should not affect my authorization. i thought she summed it up in a pretty neat and tidy way. but over this past week since ciive back here, i have heard from senior military leaders and senior enlisted advisors to those leaders, all one voice, and they are saying this just brings down the morale in the volunteer force.

and i will -- i will relay to my colleagues the comments from one of the commanders there in fort wainwright when i was there last week, and he had been sitting in the back of the room listening to all the military spouses weigh in and just voice their concerns and their anxiety about all that was going on, and he -- he said to me, he says, you know, this is a clear reminder of how marchial affects the overall mission. he said i have been on assignment, i have been deployed over to afghanistan, i have broken down doors, i have been on patrol looking for i.e.d.'s. when you are on these missions, your head has to be 100% in the

game, he says. you can't be thinking about what is happening back home. you cannot be thinking about whether or not there are financial struggles that your spouse is dealing with. you cannot be distracted from where you are in the here and now. and he said issues like this that affect our compensation, we're not talking about quality of life issues, we're talking about a matter of life and death issues, because if my head's not 100% in the game, then somebody's life potentially is on the line. and it was just a clear, clear reminder to me of again how morale affects the mission, how we need to ensure that -- that

our men and women who we have tasked to take on the most difficult of tasks, we expect them to be able to focus on where they are right then, and making sure that all is well at home is a responsibility that we also have. so there has been a lot of discussion about the b.a.h. over the years, and many among us who think that it is in need of reform or that perhaps right sizing the b.a.h. will mean more money for readiness and modernization, and i -- i certainly get that argument, and i may not agree with all of that, but i do know that there are some very hard choices that have to be made in a difficult budget environment, and i respect the work that the chairman has done along with the ranking member in trying to deal with all that.

but i do feel very certain about one thing. those who believe b.a.h. should be reformed need to make that case openly, they need to make it directly and transparently to our military families, and putting a game-changing provision like section 604 in the ndaa without that consultation i think misses the mark. the changes that we're considering in b.a.h. would not be effective until 2018, so we have some time here. we can get this right. and my amendment, which is a bipartisan amendment, simply says take a time out here. just let's take a step back. to those who think the b.a.h. is in need of reform, make the case to military families if you choose, but let's not rush this through. it's just not -- this is just not what we should be doing. mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that letters

from the military officers association of america as well as the air force sergeant's association in support of my amendment be inserted at this point in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: and with that, mr. president, i thank you and i yield the floor to my colleague from north dakota. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: i'd like to thank the senior senator from alaska. i appreciate that. i rise today to speak in support of the ndaa, national defense authorization act, which we are currently working on. the ndaa is clearly one of the most important pieces of legislation we take up in congress because it authorizes vital programs designed to keep our nation secure and our people safe. we have worked very hard to make sure that the bill upholds the nuclear missions at our missile

bases as well as unmanned arrow systems. the u.a.s. missions that have emerged as a vigorous part of our nation's defense. i want to commend the chairman and the ranking member for their good work in bringing this bill to the floor. it's a massive undertaking, and in particular i want to thank them for their support on some important priorities. this bill fully authorized programs to sustain our strategic forces, including plans to upgrade the minuteman 3 icbm, the b-52 bomber and our nuclear cruise missiles. the bill also fully authorizes the global hawk program which is proving its worth every day and demonstrates the value of unmanned aircraft in performing intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions. as you know, the appropriations committee on which i serve approved the national defense appropriations act last month,

putting in place the funding to support our armed services. as soon as we pass the authorization that is now before the full senate, i understand we'll work to bring its companion bill, the appropriations bill to the floor for a vote as well. both are vital for armed services. together these two bills, the national defense authorization act and the national defense appropriations act, will provide our armed services with both the blueprint and the funding they need to defend our nation and the american people. as i have said, i have introduced several amendments that i believe will strengthen the bill and our national security, and i'd like to take a minute to talk about them now. first i have introduced a measure that requires the air force to procure in a timely manner blackhawk helicopters to replace the vietnam-era huey helicopters that currently provide security to our intercontinental ballistic missile fields. these fields are located near

minot air force base in my home state of north dakota as well as at missile bases in wyoming and also the state of montana. the air force loses helicopters to provide security for missiles that are in transit as well as to move security forces quickly to any missile field site that could come under any kind of threat. i love the old huey helicopters. they are great. i have flown in them for many years, many occasions, and it's certainly an iconic aircraft and one that has served our nation's military very well through the vietnam era and all the way up through today. but the reality is it is no longer able to do the job that we need done. i spent some time with pilots at minot air force base earlier this year and heard about the challenges they face. for example, the front panel of the huey sometimes won't light up. now, remember, these are aircraft that were manufactured

in 1969, so the pilots flying these aircraft are a lot younger than the helicopters that they are flying, but they do a remarkable job and mechanics do an amazing job of keeping them going, and so, for example, sometimes the front panel of the huey won't light up. and so when they are flying at night, they stick a portable l.e.d. light on the dash so they can see their gauges. now, think about that. we have these amazing young men and women out there in the military flying these helicopters that are much older than they are, helicopters from 1969. some of the gauges and stuff don't have lights on them so they put l.e.d. lights on them as a make-shift way to see the gauges in the dark when they are flying out to the missile fields performing their mission. well, if they hit some rough weather, guess what happens. the jostling knocks these l.e.d. lights off the control panel and now they are in the dark, they can't even see their gauges. think about being out there flying helicopters on a military mission and it's dark and you

may be in rough weather, there could be any number of things going on, and you can't see your gauges? obviously, that doesn't -- that doesn't get the job done. that's not something that's acceptable for our men and women in uniform. so specifically what this amendment does -- and the air force acknowledges this, and they are working on getting an upgraded helicopter. it's just that under the current approach approved by d.o.d., the air force to their credit wanted to move this as fast as possible but under the plan that d.o.d. had approved, it would take like five years before we get new helicopters. think about the situation i just described and here are these airmen and women out there flying. in this make-shift condition, in a situation where the air force has acknowledged that this equipment does not meet the mission requirements, does not meet the mission requirements. so that's why we have got to accelerate this timeline and that's what this amendment does.

specifically, my amendment instructs the air force to get blackhawk helicopters on contract by 2018 which accelerates the air force procurement plan by approximately two years. and it would just enable them to acquire blackhawk helicopters under the army contract so the army is already buying these helicopters. it has been fully bid. they have been doing it for some period of time. it would just allow the air force in essence to piggyback on and buy the blackhawk helicopters they need. so it saves millions of dollars. i think somewhere between $80 million and $120 million. this is commonsense stuff. i think it's a win all the way around. this provision is co-authored by senator jon tester, democrat of mant. obviously he is well aware of the problem, too, because they face the same difficulty across our border in montana, and it's cosponsored by the other members of the senate's icbo coalition,

so i think in all it's bipartisan and we have got quite a number of senators on board supporting it. also it's really a companion bill to the bill that senator tester and i included or the amendment that we should in the f.y. 2017 defense appropriations bill. so we have already put $75 million in the defense appropriation bill to start the acquisition, the dollars are there, and this is the authorization that goes with the dollars. and so again, i think, you know, we have worked very hard on this, we have set it up the right way and it's something we need to do. the second amendment i have introduced will help to meet the challenge of training enough pilots to fly r.p.a.'s or remotely piloted aircraft, unmanned aircraft. which, you know, i don't know that there is any mission in air force, perhaps the whole d.o.d., that's more in demand right now than r.p.a.'s, unmanned

aircraft. i mean, all over the world we're using this amazing tool, the predator, and it is in tremendous demand right now, so that also creates a tremendous demand for pilot training. so chairman mccain and ranking member reed included language in the base bill that requires air force to make the transition to using enlisted pilots to fly r.p.a.'s so you would have both officers and enlisted pilots able to fly r.p.a.'s, and it's needed just because of the incredible demand for pilots which results from the incredible demand for this mission. and so i want to make sure that if the air force is going to make this tranmission, that it can guarantee that pilots in the air guard who use separate personnel systems and different training schedules are able to receive training at a rate that's commensurate with the active duty counterpart. obviously, we rely heavily on the guard and they need to have

the necessary access to training. so this amendment directs that the air force is able to use contractor services to ensure that there is enough training capacity to train air national guard pilots to fly r.p.a.'s in order to keep pace with active duty pilot training. we know that air force has had difficulty training r.p.a. pilots fast enough to meet operational demands, and so one way to correct that deficiency is to use the private sector to augment the training that the air force provides directly. north dakota general atomics, manufacturer of the predator and the reaper, is building a training academy to train pilots. it's at the grand forks air force base. it's in a technology park on the grand forks air force base. they are going to train pilots for their foreign military sales. so for aircraft, in essence, predators and reapers that have been purchased by our military

allies -- france, england, italy , netherlands, i think maybe australia. there is a whole litany of our allies that are now using r.p.a.'s and general atomics will actually conduct that training at grand forks air force base. it's grand sky technology park at the grand forks air force base. there's no reason why our own air force can't leverage that incredible resource as well or resources like it at other locations, but clearly it's something we need to help leverage our pilot training. so, mr. president, with that, i'll wrap up. again, i want to emphasize the importance of this -p and national defense authorization act. i want to thank both our chairman and the ranking member for their work. euplt to encourage all of my colleagues to join together here in a bipartisan way and pass this impor